Creation vs. Evolution

[dylansan]

Why would you think nobody will know? What possible reason do you have for that given that mankind as only acquired additional insight into the origins of our universe over time? Thinking that the universe has always existed dodges the question of WHY it exists. The answer must be that it is the natural result of nothing.

How do you know that it is the natural result of nothing? How do you know the universe isn't a one-of-a-kind thing that doesn't have a cause? Physics and laws of how things work get very skewed at these levels, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was no way to find out whether there was a beginning or not. It also would not surprise me if someone did find out, but not in my lifetime, and certainly not as easily as other things have been discovered.

It's a lot easier to find the origin of our universe (which we are still not sure of) than the origin of everything and every universe that has ever existed. We, as 3 dimensional creatures, cannot perceive the other dimensions the way it may be necessary to in order to understand the universe. Until someone figures out how to change our perception or location in other dimensions, these things will be nearly impossible to explain.

Sorry for the long-winded response. I just recently watched "Imagining the tenth dimension" again and I still find it interesting.

 

[Pako]

I guess if you're the ultimate supreme being of the universe, answering to basic logic really can't hold a candle to the existence of God.

If we put human limitations on God, I have no answer for you. If you are open to a logic beyond our understanding, I have a book you could read that might answer some of your questions.

 

[Danoff]

How do you know that it is the natural result of nothing? How do you know the universe isn't a one-of-a-kind thing that doesn't have a cause?

We're talking about reality here right? I mean, we're talking about the existence of everything. Space, time, matter, any and all dimensions, substance, and energy - what we know of, and what we don't.

The most fundamental question you can ask is why any of it exists at all. Why not, instead of x dimensions, a god, matter, and energy, we have nothing. No space, no time, no matter, no energy, no god.

And the answer is there is no reason for anything to exist. When you've finally reached the last question, and have asked yourself why it is there, the only answer is that there is no reason for it to be there - because there was nothing to put it there. I don't care if the universe is self-sustaining and has always existed. I don't care if God is self-sustaining and has always existed. At some point you have to ask yourself why, and there answer is that there is no good reason for anything to exist at all - because you've gotten to the point where there is no cause.

Nothing is the only fundamental state we can reach where there are no longer any questions about where it come from. You don't have to ask yourself where nothing came from, who created nothing, or why it exists - because it is the most fundamental state. At some point that has to be addressed.

If God always existed for all time independent of the universe, it is because God is the natural outcome of nothing. If the universe has always existed for all time independent of anything, it is because the universe is the natural outcome of nothing. If time has always existed, it is because time is the natural outcome of nothing.

That is the only possible answer that leaves no questions. Any other answer is by definition not at the end of a train of questions.

If we put human limitations on God, I have no answer for you.

What limitations am I putting on God? What logic am I imposing on God? I'm simply asking why God exists? Why not nothing?

 

[niky]

You're right. It's based on three major functions, one of which is replicating the action. But I guess for arguments sake we should throw that one away.

If you weren't around to see when anything originated, to know and have proof of when it came about, then your calculations could be completely wrong without your ever knowing, no?
I think 4+4 is 9.
I never saw the answer, so I can also know 44+44 is ... um... oops

So... replicate turning 4 and 4 into 9. I'll give you four pennies, and another four pennies, and I expect nine pennies back. Get cracking...

-----

Ah... philosophy... why does God exist? The big question is... what makes us say he doesn't? What makes us say that it's a he... or a single entity... or even a levitating mass of carbohydrates smeared in tomato paste?

Why put human limitations on God?

 

[FoolKiller]

No.


I don't care what plane or dimension or whatever he exists in. Why does he exist AT ALL in ANY dimension?


Why did he exist at the beginning of OUR universe then? Where did he come from? At some point, the answer must be of the form "he had to exist because if you assume nothing - god can be derived".

Again, it comes back to nothing.

Here is the problem as I see it. You are attempting to ask how God began. This question assumes that God is held by the constraints of time as we know it. If God exists in a way that is free of the constraints of time then there is no beginning, coming from, or whatever. Heck, even the term exist is relative to a human understanding. If there is no time then how is there a beginning?

You are asking questions that are quite possibly beyond the ability of physical science to measure or explain, yet you want an answer that can hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Currently we cannot say, without a doubt, how the universe began. We have plausible theories. But, as I understand it, every time we try to see how the existence of our universe began we discover that there is more universe than we thought. If science cannot yet measure or explain, without a doubt, the beginning of existence as we know it how are we to explain something that was there before existence in a way that will hold up to your scientific scrutiny?

 

[Small_Fryz]

Here is the problem as I see it. You are attempting to ask how God began. This question assumes that God is held by the constraints of time as we know it. If God exists in a way that is free of the constraints of time then there is no beginning, coming from, or whatever. Heck, even the term exist is relative to a human understanding. If there is no time then how is there a beginning?

You are asking questions that are quite possibly beyond the ability of physical science to measure or explain, yet you want an answer that can hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Currently we cannot say, without a doubt, how the universe began. We have plausible theories. But, as I understand it, every time we try to see how the existence of our universe began we discover that there is more universe than we thought. If science cannot yet measure or explain, without a doubt, the beginning of existence as we know it how are we to explain something that was there before existence in a way that will hold up to your scientific scrutiny?

His not asking how, his asking Why.

Why does all this exist? Why cant it all just be nothing. Why does something have to exist?

 

[Sureboss]

But, as I understand it, every time we try to see how the existence of our universe began we discover that there is more universe than we thought.

Won't this always happen though? Because the Universe is ever expanding.

 

[Pako]

So... replicate turning 4 and 4 into 9. I'll give you four pennies, and another four pennies, and I expect nine pennies back. Get cracking...

-----

Ah... philosophy... why does God exist? The big question is... what makes us say he doesn't? What makes us say that it's a he... or a single entity... or even a levitating mass of carbohydrates smeared in tomato paste?

Why put human limitations on God?

For those that believe what's written in the Bible, we have some insight what God is. For example, we were made in his own image. What does this mean? I have no idea but speculate it's not physical characteristics but rather like consciousness. Not sure of gender, but He is referred to as Father which gives us the impression that God is male, but 'Father' would not necessarily mean gender but rather role characteristics of a teacher and guide. Further reading gives us clues that He is merciful, kind, loving, wise, and understanding. I wouldn't say it's all a bed of roses, as there is also context in which He is also judge and executioner although I think He gets blamed all too often. We are given some human characteristics that we can relate to but we should not limit what God is to just those traits, but what else might He be? One day I hope to ask Him.

 

[Danoff]

Here is the problem as I see it. You are attempting to ask how God began.

No.

I'm simply asking why God exists? Why not nothing?

This question assumes that God is held by the constraints of time as we know it.

No.

I don't care if God is self-sustaining and has always existed. At some point you have to ask yourself why

If God exists in a way that is free of the constraints of time then there is no beginning, coming from, or whatever. Heck, even the term exist is relative to a human understanding. If there is no time then how is there a beginning?

Beside the point. The real question is why.

You are asking questions that are quite possibly beyond the ability of physical science to measure or explain, yet you want an answer that can hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Nope, I'm deducing what little I can with a very broad range of possibilities - including lots of possibilities that exist outside the realm of science or human understanding (like the notion that god exists, or that he exists independently of our space-time)

If science cannot yet measure or explain, without a doubt, the beginning of existence as we know it how are we to explain something that was there before existence in a way that will hold up to your scientific scrutiny?

I'm not really talking about science here. I'm just talking about pure reason based on some very broad assumptions about what might be out there. I'm allowing for the possibility that God does not have a beginning. I'm allowing for the possibility that the universe does not have a beginning. What I'm saying is that when you reach the last thing - when you've identified the most basic beginnings that you can, and you can identify nothing that created that which created the beginnings of the universe (and that is a point which I think mankind will necessarily reach), then you have identified that nothing created that which created the universe... which means that somehow the creator (big bang, god, whatever) is the natural result of nothing. I'm saying that the scientific proof will be of the following form.

Assumptions
--------------
No space
No time
No reality
No physical laws
No existence

Results
----------
God or Matter and Energy


Conclusion
-------------
The universe


Notice I didn't say that "nothing" ever existed at any time. I simply said that if you start your derivation of the universe with the assumption that nothing exists, God or the universe or whatever must naturally follow.

Edit: I'd like to make this clear (or learn how to make this point clear), so if you're not following me (which I suspect is pretty much everyone given that I'm not sure I've ever successfully communicated this point to anyone) ask questions.

 

[FoolKiller]

The real question is why.

OK, so obviously I was arguing the wrong question.

As for why......

When you say

I'm simply asking why God exists?

Do you mean why people believe he exists or why, in the scheme of things, does he exist, assuming he does?

 

[Famine]

The question is "Why anything?".

Which probably doesn't help much

 

[FoolKiller]

The question is "Why anything?".

Which probably doesn't help much

Really, with a question that vague the answer would be equally vague: Because.

 

[Famine]

Really, with a question that vague the answer would be equally vague: Because.

Which, peculiarly, lends itself directly to an "unguided" origin for this universe.

 

[Danoff]

Really, with a question that vague the answer would be equally vague: Because.

I think the only possible answer to that question is that it naturally follows from nothing. If you ponder that question for a while, I wonder if you won't eventually come to the same conclusion. I've never heard a good explanation for "why anything" (religious or otherwise) - and reason tells me that there is only one possible answer that doesn't leave any more questions..

 

[FoolKiller]

Which, peculiarly, lends itself directly to an "unguided" origin for this universe.

I think the only possible answer to that question is that it naturally follows from nothing. If you ponder that question for a while, I wonder if you won't eventually come to the same conclusion. I've never heard a good explanation for "why anything" (religious or otherwise) - and reason tells me that there is only one possible answer that doesn't leave any more questions..

This is all of course assuming that there is a humanly possible way to seriously answer that question, which there isn't.

The answer could very well be something beyond your ability to reason.


And of course, if we do assume it starts from nothing then I would easily follow up with: How?

 

[Danoff]

The answer could very well be something beyond your ability to reason.

Possibly. But I think the form of the answer isn't. The real explanation for our origins, the one neither science nor religion has tackled has to be of the form "here's how you get what we have now if you assume absolutely nothing". Right now we have "Assume god" or "Assume matter, space, and physics". Any assumptions leave questions behind.

And of course, if we do assume it starts from nothing then I would easily follow up with: How?

If I knew that I'd be famous. But there must be an answer. I mean, we're here right? Well, maybe. But if you assume that we're here (an assumption that doesn't leave any questions thereby proving that what I just typed above is wrong), then I think there must be a way to get from nothing to here.

Hawking has postulated that negative and positive particles pop into and out of existence spontaneously. Of course, I think that notion relies on laws of physics and space-time, but perhaps the universe is similar.

 

[Pako]

Danoff,

If you can entertain the thought of everything from nothing, surely you can entertain the thought of God (less dogma).

 

[Famine]

Danoff,

If you can entertain the thought of everything from nothing, surely you can entertain the thought of God (less dogma).

Danoff's point is that whichever version you choose to accept, something has to have come from nothing - but that isn't the question. There is, as he mentions, some scientific evidence that some things can originate from nothing - paired particles do indeed pop into existence all the time, only to self-annihilate moments later and pop out of existence. It's the basis of the science of black hole evaporation and black holes (or the singularities therein) are very close analogues for the conditions at the Big Bang.


But though we know they do appear from nothing, we don't know why. And that's the question.

 

[Pako]

Danoff's point is that whichever version you choose to accept, something has to have come from nothing - but that isn't the question. There is, as he mentions, some scientific evidence that some things can originate from nothing - paired particles do indeed pop into existence all the time, only to self-annihilate moments later and pop out of existence. It's the basis of the science of black hole evaporation and black holes (or the singularities therein) are very close analogues for the conditions at the Big Bang.


But though we know they do appear from nothing, we don't know why. And that's the question.

What we know is that they appear from an undetectable source. Could this be interpreted as nothing?

*having flashbacks of "The Never Ending Story"*

 

[Famine]

What we know is that they appear from an undetectable source. Could this be interpreted as nothing?

Yes.

 

[Danoff]

If you can entertain the thought of everything from nothing, surely you can entertain the thought of God (less dogma).

Famine correctly responded to this. But I'll re-iterate because I think it bears repeating. There is evidence to suggest that something can come from nothing. And, I can use reason to determine that everything had to come from nothing. Reason and evidence do not point to God. That being said, I have no problem entertaining the concept of God (as I have done throughout this something-from-nothing discussion).

One big impact here is that I'm showing you that you have to entertain the notion that God naturally arises from nothing at all. Have you considered this? Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Are biblical scholars working into the night to explain this?

What we know is that they appear from an undetectable source. Could this be interpreted as nothing?

I believe they appear as a result of the laws of physics and the presence of space-time, but you're pushing my knowledge about the fringes of astrophysics.

Edit: BTW - where did Earth go? He still hasn't addressed my 3 pointed post.

 

[Pako]

I'm entertaining the thought that God didn't come from anything, or nothing because He has always been. If God were limited by our own understanding, I could follow your logic. This, however, is not the case.

 

[Famine]

I'm entertaining the thought that God didn't come from anything, or nothing because He has always been. If God were limited by our own understanding, I could follow your logic. This, however, is not the case.

I'm going to misquote you now. Hopefully you can see my reasoning for doing so.

I'm entertaining the thought that the Universe didn't come from anything, or nothing because it has always been. If the Universe were limited by our own understanding, I could follow your logic. This, however, is not the case.

 

[Pako]

I'm going to misquote you now. Hopefully you can see my reasoning for doing so.

Yep, I totally get that.

 

[Danoff]

I'm entertaining the thought that God didn't come from anything, or nothing because He has always been. If God were limited by our own understanding, I could follow your logic. This, however, is not the case.

How am I "limiting God with my understanding" by asking why he would exist?

I'm not sure you understand yet that I'm allowing for the possibility that God has always been. I'm not making that point clear.

 

[Pako]

How am I "limiting God with my understanding" by asking why he would exist?

I'm not sure you understand yet that I'm allowing for the possibility that God has always been.

Yet you say this:

One big impact here is that I'm showing you that you have to entertain the notion that God naturally arises from nothing at all.

There is no event of 'arising' if He has always been. Or am I missing your point?

 

[Danoff]

There is no event of 'arising' if He has always been. Or am I missing your point?

Yea,

I purposefully used "arising" because it was nebulous. Even if he only "arises" on a blackboard, but in reality has always been - it still has to be shown that God is the result of nothing.

Let me try it another way. Somehow it must be shown that "nothing" is impossible. That if you assume "nothing" you get "god" - thereby proving that it isn't possible to ever have "nothing".

Does that help?

 

[Danoff]

I'm not even going to wait for a response. I'm just gonna try again - this time with a logical proof.

Assumptions:
A implies B
A

Now. We did not assume B above. We assumed A and that A implies B. From this (and modus-whatever-it's-called) we can conclude B.

We didn't assume B. We derived from those assumptions that it is impossible not to have B. B naturally follows from those assumptions. B arises from those assumptions.

Now here's what I'm saying

Assumptions:
Nothing Exists

From this we must be able to derive that God exists. We must show that it is impossible to not have god given the assumption of nothing. God naturally follows from nothing. God arises from the assumption that nothing exists.

Hopefully that helps (and keep in mind that I'm also saying the the universe or matter and energy can be substituted for "God" above)

 

[dylansan]

What reason do you have for assuming that god follows nothing?

 

[Danoff]

What reason do you have for assuming that god follows nothing?

That's an exercise left to the reader.

I can read your question two ways. The first way is "exactly how can you derive god from nothing" - to which I'll reply that if i knew that I'd be famous. Hopefully that's not what you meant.

The second interpretation is "why must god naturally follow from nothing". The answer there is that there is no other reason for reality to exist.

Let me put it this way.

You (not necessarily you, but someone): "God created the universe".
Me: "Who created God?"
You: "God exists outside of time, he has always been"
Me: "That doesn't answer my question. Why does God exist?"
You: "God exists because in some alternate dimension, outside of time, energy exists and can become sentient"
Me: "Where does the energy come from?"
You: "It comes from a manifold in the membrane of that particular dimension".
Me: "Where did the membrane, manifold, and dimension come from"
You: "It comes from something called Marklar, which is clearly the result of any infinite dimensional space"
Me: "Where did the infinite dimensional space come from"
You: "I can derive an infinite dimensional space from nothing at all."

My train of questions never stops until I get to "from nothing at all". That's why I know that it has to be reduced to that - regardless of what or how incomprehensible the answers are.