Does The Universe Require a Creator?

[A Higher Enlightenment]

The Universe Exist, we live in it amongst other things that exist, remarkable things, that one could argue, is a result of creator, right?
So, the question now is.

Does Existence Require a Creator?

Many will argue that yes it does, however I am here to argue that it does not.
The simple definition of existence can help establish this claim.


You cannot create something from nothing.

If there is nothing, that would mean there is nothing to create with, and there for something cannot be created.

Nothing, by definition is impossible and does not exist.

Since nothing cannot exist, that which is left is Existence.

Existence is there for Infinite, and always has been. It has no beginning and no end.

Since Existence has always been, it does not need a creator.

Since Existence does not require a creator, the Universe exist and is there for part of existence, and therefor also does not require a Creator.

 

[Mythtaken]

That was very succinct and logical -- and completely irrelevant from the point of view of those who believe.

The creator (whoever or whatever that might be) exists outside of time and space (which brings up another whole set of problems). Therefore, it is entirely possible for the creator to create a universe within time and space where there was once nothing.

My point is, you can never hope to argue with creationists on their level. Their ability to rationalize exceptions far exceeds our ability to provide reasoned arguments. You'll always get farther by forcing them to defend the existence of the creator. At the very least, you'll make them angry enough to go away.

 

[mechtheist]

I don't buy your claim that you can't create something from nothing, FYI--I think the brains that know these things say the likely net energy content of the universe is zero due to gravitational energy being negative. I'm more inclined to think for there to be absolutely nothing isn't a possibility. A universe exists, we're pretty sure about that one, why how where from we don't know, maybe never will, throwing in a deity just makes that much more stuff you gotta explain. Occam can shave that crap right off the table. Mythtaken is right about the believers, they'll keep coming up with rationales justifying their belief no matter how ridiculous or insane.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

I'm more inclined to think for there to be absolutely nothing isn't a possibility

Then you must agree then, that there was always something, and Nothingness there for never was.
If nothing isn't a possibility, then you can't get something from it.

A universe exists, we're pretty sure about that one, why how where from we don't know, maybe never will, throwing in a deity just makes that much more stuff you gotta explain. Occam can shave that crap right off the table. Mythtaken is right about the believers, they'll keep coming up with rationales justifying their belief no matter how ridiculous or insane.

(This is just my personal belief) I believe that our universe is an infinitely small part of all of existence, and was just an inevitable probability, that was bound to happen after an eternity of existence. (Outside the need for a supernatural creator)

 

[We are Borg]

The big bang was something the energy that it hold was something.

 

[*SD*]

I actually wrote a point by point response to the OP, but decided not to post it for a few reasons. The main one being the definition of "nothing" - and as far as I'm concerned no one knows how all the "stuff" got here, or if it even "got here" at all.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

I actually wrote a point by point response to the OP, but decided not to post it for a few reasons. The main one being the definition of "nothing" - and as far as I'm concerned no one knows how all the "stuff" got here, or if it even "got here" at all.

To imply it "got here" Would also imply that it came into existence. And I am totally in agreement that our universe came into existence, but only as an inevitable consequence of events that were already happening before, these events were bound to happen after an eternity of existence.

Imagine it like this, you have a bag filled thousands of marbles and 10 different colors.
You blindly reach into the bag and remove 1 marble at a time, and place them in a row, when the bag is empty you take not of the order of colored marbles, from first to last that you removed. You then fill the bag again and repeat, if you continue to do this and could live long enough. You would inevitably exhaust all possible orders and may even repeat some.

My belief is our universe is just like that, one of many inevitable events that took place and will continue to take place
during an Eternity of Existence.

One could argue that existence is not eternal because things come into and out of existence all the time, right? Like the birth of a Human, and then the death of that same individual. Well, no, actually and the reason I say this is because, those things are not all of existence.
My point being is that there will always be something.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

FYI--I think the brains that know these things say the likely net energy content of the universe is zero due to gravitational energy being negative.

This is called the The zero-energy universe hypothesis, it basically proposes, the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.

This is a consequence of something (Gravity and Matter) and is not the same as there being nothing, and then something comes from it.

 

[Mythtaken]

The problem with this question about the beginning of the universe is that it is essentially a philosophical minefield any way you come at it. Take your (OP) first premise:
"You cannot create something from nothing."
It seems reasonable on the surface, but is it true? Can we prove it? We don't really understand what "nothing" is. Maybe something can come from nothing. Or maybe nothing can evolve into something. We have no idea.

We do know that time and space are finite. Following the great expansion backwards takes us to the point at which space and time began. Was there something before that? How can something (or nothing) exist before there was time? Is our entire understanding of time and space incorrect?

The mind wobbles....

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

How can something (or nothing) exist before there was time? Is our entire understanding of time and space incorrect?

I’m more inclined to believe that time it’s self has no beginning. There has always been time think about the sense in which time is applied before there was our universe there was a time at which there was not. For how long we would never know. But why does our universe have Be the beginning of time and space that automatically propose the idea that our universe is all of existence. When in fact it is more likely that it is a very small part of all of existence a consequence of a spontaneous event that occurred from something else that already existed. Maybe even a much larger universe.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Nothing, by definition is impossible and does not exist.

​

 

[Mythtaken]

I’m more inclined to believe that time it’s self has no beginning.

Of course you're right. And wrong. We know that space time began when the universe started to expand. However, we live within the reference frame of our universe, so there has never been a time when there was no time.

This is true even if you subscribe to the idea that our universe is just one of an infinite number of quantum bubbles that form and burst within the cosmos, or that our universe leaked through from another universe, or that this is simply the latest iteration of an infinite expansion / contraction loop. Time has always existed in our universe. Time is also finite because it has a beginning point. We cannot see beyond that beginning point to know what may or may not be there.

 

[Mythtaken]

Nothing, by definition is impossible and does not exist.​

Also true within our universe. Beyond it, who knows?

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

​

"Sometimes these quantum fields find themselves, in a state with enough Energy to spawn a particle, "Seemingly out of nothing" But this is not the case and is in fact a clever play on words, these particles are result of those Quantum fields. According to quantum field theory, how would those "virtual particles" Come into existence, without the quantum fields themselves? As it is stated in the video and I, 100% agree, a 100% empty space and full vacuum is far from "Nothing"

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Also true within our universe. Beyond it, who knows?

I disagree, I have something to share, this took some thought, but the answer is quite simple. I can Name something; I am 100% sure has always existed no matter what "Universe" and therefor is impossible for there to have ever been Nothingness. As a matter of speaking, this thing is a direct consequence from the absence of something. (LIGHT)

We all could agree that Light exist and Darkness, yes? These are something?

Now I wouldn't go as far as to say that darkness is something that creates necessarily. However, If Darkness is something that has and will always exist, then there has never truly been "ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS" And since "nothingness has never been" Something can never have come from a state of nothingness, because nothingness never was.

Now one may ask, but what if you remove darkness?
Good question, and I have a counter, for you.
We all know, you can remove darkness with light, but how would you remove it without light?

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

"Sometimes these quantum fields find themselves, in a state with enough Energy to spawn a particle, "Seemingly out of nothing"

Energy Is also something, and if it can't be created nor destroyed, then it has also always been.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

We don't really understand what "nothing" is.

I don’t think it’s that we don’t understand what nothing is, I believe it is that we don’t know how to describe what “nothing is”.

We can’t paint a picture or give an explanation that our brains can comprehend.
Trying to understand what nothing is in a sense of imagining, is like trying to imagine what it’s like to be a rock.
I strongly Believe though; nothing is the opposite of existence. Or otherwise, the absence of the existence of anything.

If you were to take away everything that existed, what do you have? 100% pure Vacuum? And this Vacuum exist as a result of the absence of matter.
In Physics it is an area with vaporous pressure, and this pressure is Physical, physical things exist.
I'm pretty sure you can't remove the existence of a vacuum without introducing some form of matter.
Trying to do this is like trying to remove "empty space" Without introducing matter/or something to occupy it.

Is it possible to give an example, of how to remove a vacuum, without introducing matter of some sort, if not, then I do believe I will stand by what I believe it to be, (THE ABSENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING) and this in my opinion is impossible, for many reasons I have demonstrated above.

Sometimes the Absence of something's means the inevitable existence of something in its place.

 

[Mythtaken]

We all could agree that Light exist and Darkness, yes? These are something?

Light exists, at least in our universe. Darkness on the other hand is just the name we give to the absence of light. I can't say I've ever heard of a beam of darkness or any experiments involving the movement or force of darkness.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Light exists, at least in our universe. Darkness on the other hand is just the name we give to the absence of light. I can't say I've ever heard of a beam of darkness or any experiments involving the movement or force of darkness.

Darkness comes in many forms sometimes in the form of no light at all, sometimes in the form of shadows. Shadows do exist As a result of the disruption of light or lesser light. Also a beam of light is just another kind of light, As a result of focusing the light. Just like light shadows are another kind of darkness.

So yes darkness does exist, But only in the total absence of light, lesser light than the surrounding area usually caused by an obstruction of the light from the source, aka the presence of shadows.

 

[Mythtaken]

I'd be interested to learn more about this. I know light is energy. It can be measured; it has a force. We can harness the energy from light to generate electricity and do work.

Is darkness energy? Is it wave or particle based? Can we harness it? It would be worth billions (or at least a Nobel Prize) if one could build a "darkness" panel that could generate power. It would solve many of the energy problems in the world.