Does The Universe Require a Creator?

[he_who_is_nobody]

Is darkness energy?

Dark energy.

Drum roll, please...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

"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"

In a scientific sense, that is what nothing is. But, much like atoms were once thought to be the smallest item to make up matter, our better understanding of nothing has also changed the definition of it. Remember, language is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I honestly do not see much usefulness in navel gazing into our old idea of nothing.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

In a scientific sense, that is what nothing

I'm talking about a physical sense, not something that is spawned based on theoretical science.
I believe the scientific model of what nothing is, is wrong, or at least what they refer to as nothing is in other words still something.
And that something is still very much not understood.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I'm talking about a physical sense, not something that is spawned based on theoretical science.

If you are talking about something physical, then you are talking about science (theoretical or otherwise).

I believe the scientific model of what nothing is, is wrong, or at least what they refer to as nothing is in other words still something.

And you base that on what? Again, if you want to talk about it in a physical sense, you have to be talking about it in a scientific sense.

And that something is still very much not understood.

I do not think anyone is claiming to understand nothing. However, you are claiming that the science about it is wrong. I am not sure what you are basing that opinion on, though.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

NOTE: Please excuse any Typos or other hiccups try your best to see the point I'm making, I am in response to this last post at 1:25 AM EST.
I am very much tired!

If you are talking about something physical, then you are talking about science (theoretical or otherwise).

And you base that on what? Again, if you want to talk about it in a physical sense, you have to be talking about it in a scientific sense.

I'm saying it's impossible for nothingness to have ever been a state of Existence.
Again, there is no Physical sense of Nothingness, because it is impossible for it to have ever been.
That's the whole point I'm making. What science refers to as "Nothing" is "Empty Space" with Quantum fields left, but both "Space" & "Quantum Fields" are indeed something and not Nothing. But let's just talk about one of these for the moment it's all we need for now.

I Want to make an argument here:
Science refers to Empty Space as Nothing (I disagree)
The Science definition is a play on words and is demonstrably, wrong.

EMPTY SPACE is not "Nothing" and is in-fact Physical and is Something, and really simple, it is "Occupiable Space", and it is present through the Absence of Matter.

Would you agree that in order to be aware of something it would have to Exist? How could you be aware of something that doesn't?

Things that Exist are Something right?

Somethings that exist are physical things.

We can observe Physical things, right?

You must then agree that you are Aware of Physical things?

NOTE: (This is not to say that everything that exist, and we are aware of is physical, or that we are aware of everything physical that exist)

Empty Space is something, I am aware of the presence of Empty Space, I can Observe Empty Space, Empty Space is Physical, and there for Empty Space Exist.

We can prove the non-existence of nothing because it is a direct contradiction of existence of "Empty Space". It argues against facts that are already known to be true.

Nothing is the "Absence of the Existence of Anything", So it is not something, and therefore cannot exist, it is a direct contradiction of Existence.

In example, I can prove that there is no Invisible Blue Genie floating around above us, making people fall in love, because you cannot be INVISIBLE and BLUE.

The genie is INVISIBLE and BLUE. and that's impossible, and therefore cannot exist.

Why It is impossible to have Nothingness!

Isn't it possible, seems pretty obvious right? If one could, you would just simply remove everything right? After everything is gone there would be nothingness.

You cannot Remove "everything"

Nothingness would be the total "Absence of the Existence of Anything" This would include Empty Space and it is "IMPOSSIBLE" to remove everything, including "Empty Space" you would have to do so without introducing matter, because introducing matter only brings "something else EXISTENCE"

In other words, how would you get rid of Empty Space without occupying it. And the Answer is you can't, it's impossible.

So, if Nothingness has never been, then it does not Exist, so what's left is Existence.

You cannot get something from Nothing, because the state of nothingness has never been, and there for something cannot have come from it.

So, the only logical explanation, if you can except it is, Existence is Eternal, it has always been, because it never came to be! It is then with in a very reasonable assumption that our Universe and everything in it, is not all of existence, but rather probability caused from a series of inevitable events, that took place and were bound to happen and will continue to happen eventually during an eternity of Existence.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

NOTE: Please excuse any Typos or other hiccups try your best to see the point I'm making, I am in response to this last post at 1:25 AM EST.
I am very much tired!

You would have to be at the level of a Trumpet for me to comment on typos or hiccups impeding a conversation.

I'm saying it's impossible for nothingness to have ever been a state of Existence.
Again, there is no Physical sense of Nothingness, because it is impossible for it to have ever been.
That's the whole point I'm making. What science refers to as "Nothing" is "Empty Space" with Quantum fields left, but both "Space" & "Quantum Fields" are indeed something and not Nothing. But let's just talk about one of these for the moment it's all we need for now.

I get that this is what you are saying, which is why I do not understand your rejection of the scientific definition of nothing. If you cite what the current science says, you do not have to state all of this.

I Want to make an argument here:
Science refers to Empty Space as Nothing (I disagree)
The Science definition is a play on words and is demonstrably, wrong.

I wonder if people fought this hard when science redefined the atom.

EMPTY SPACE is not "Nothing" and is in-fact Physical and is Something, and really simple, it is "Occupiable Space", and it is present through the Absence of Matter.

Would you agree that in order to be aware of something it would have to Exist? How could you be aware of something that doesn't?

Things that Exist are Something right?

Somethings that exist are physical things.

We can observe Physical things, right?

You must then agree that you are Aware of Physical things?

NOTE: (This is not to say that everything that exist, and we are aware of is physical, or that we are aware of everything physical that exist)

Empty Space is something, I am aware of the presence of Empty Space, I can Observe Empty Space, Empty Space is Physical, and there for Empty Space Exist.

We can prove the non-existence of nothing because it is a direct contradiction of existence of "Empty Space". It argues against facts that are already known to be true.

Nothing is the "Absence of the Existence of Anything", So it is not something, and therefore cannot exist, it is a direct contradiction of Existence.

In example, I can prove that there is no Invisible Blue Genie floating around above us, making people fall in love, because you cannot be INVISIBLE and BLUE.

The genie is INVISIBLE and BLUE. and that's impossible, and therefore cannot exist.

Why It is impossible to have Nothingness!

Isn't it possible, seems pretty obvious right? If one could, you would just simply remove everything right? After everything is gone there would be nothingness.

You cannot Remove "everything"

Nothingness would be the total "Absence of the Existence of Anything" This would include Empty Space and it is "IMPOSSIBLE" to remove everything, including "Empty Space" you would have to do so without introducing matter, because introducing matter only brings "something else EXISTENCE"

In other words, how would you get rid of Empty Space without occupying it. And the Answer is you can't, it's impossible.

So, if Nothingness has never been, then it does not Exist, so what's left is Existence.

You are saying nothing new, and by citing the current definition of nothing used by science, you would not have to waste so much time repeating what is already known.

You cannot get something from Nothing, because the state of nothingness has never been, and there for something cannot have come from it.

So, the only logical explanation, if you can except it is, Existence is Eternal, it has always been, because it never came to be! It is then with in a very reasonable assumption that our Universe and everything in it, is not all of existence, but rather probability caused from a series of inevitable events, that took place and were bound to happen and will continue to happen eventually during an eternity of Existence.

​

Welcome to modern cosmology (see Carroll's point 4 in the above video). Again, nothing you are saying here is new and can be better summed up by referring to the scientific definition of nothing.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

You are saying nothing new, and by citing the current definition of nothing used by science, you would not have to waste so much time repeating what is already known.

Science calls "Nothing is Empty Space" So then How is that the same, if I can give examples of Empty Space to be something and not nothing?

 

[mechtheist]

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.

No, darkness doesn't exist, just like 'coldness' doesn't either, you can't 'beam' coldness.

We all know, you can remove darkness with light, but how would you remove it without light?

This is simply incoherent, darkness being nothing more than less light than some other place. 'Without light' means dark, so your assuming what your trying to prove, a common, even ubiquitous tactic of all arguments for god. It's kinda worse really, because your really asking how can A and notA both be true. and that's just silly.

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.

Many of your posts imply that you don't understand that time can't exist without space, they're both part of some whole that I doubt we come close to understanding yet. 'darkness never was' What does that mean considering that 'never was' entails time in some way? I don't think our brains can comprehend what anything means when time somehow doesn't exist. FFS, I had to use 'when' there. Since absolute nothingness would mean no time, then of course, there's always been something since the only time time was around was when there was something, you can just ignore all the 'time' nothingness prevailed since it's nothing to care about. All of that is incoherent, the idea of 'no time' is incoherent, at least to our brains, does anyone disagree with that? If so, tell me about it, I'd really love for someone to make sense of that.

 

[mechtheist]

There's a simple question that's been debated for 1000's of years without consensus, and I'll not say this with the right terms and probably be laughably incorrect in how I express it but I think it will be clear what I'm trying to get at --it's about the real basics, is logic something that simply must be true, does it exist in some way even if nothing else does? If that's true, then something has to exist, at all 'times', or at least whenever there is time for something to exist or not exist. One way to look at it is to go to The Hitchhikers Guide:

"I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”​

God had enough respect for logic that he made himself not exist!

And again, I won't say this all that well--there is something in basic logic about any axiomatic system, if you can come up with one instance of a proof of something that is false, it will mean you can prove anything is true. So, if there was some universe where logic wasn't a thing, then within that universe, it would necessarily be true that such universes can't exist and they would of course cease to exist. So there, I have solved what the greatest minds for 1000s of years couldn't. I have spoken. This is the way. BS is part of my religion.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Science calls "Nothing is Empty Space" So then How is that the same, if I can give examples of Empty Space to be something and not nothing?

Because your more significant point is that nothing (the lay understanding of it) does not exist. Cosmology has already beat you to that conclusion and redefined nothing into something useful. As I keep saying, if you cite the current scientific understanding of nothing, you would not have to waste your time explaining that nothing (the lay version) does not exist.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

No, darkness doesn't exist, just like 'coldness' doesn't either, you can't 'beam' coldness.

This is incorrect, Darkness does exist it's called objective reality or in better words Objective (Physical)

Meaning that something (aka Shadows/Darkness is actual (so it exists) independent of the mind.
Even if there were no one, or no living thing to see shadows or be aware of darkness, it would still exist. Unlike Coldness which is an experience created in our mind as a result of Physical reality. But without the being to experience it "COLDNESS" would not exist.

you can't 'beam' coldness.

There is no argument here, you cant beam gravity, in other words something can exist even if you can't beam it or manipulate it. Beams of light can be created through the manipulation of light.

All of that is incoherent, the idea of 'no time' is incoherent, at least to our brains, does anyone disagree with that?

Then would you agree that time is eternal? Since if you are denying the possibility for the non-existence of time so then what's left is the existence of time. Including a "TIME" before our universe.

From our understanding of the universe, our universe is roughly 13.8 Billion years old according to modern study. So if our universe has a time of existence, then there was a length of time it didn't exist right?

No, this is impossible if time is eternal, because You can't have X number of years elapse (BEFORE) Our universe began, simply because you have no point to measure from A - Z (where Z is the beginning of our Universe) And what's between is a Time Period Before. This isn't a possibility if Time always was, aka eternal (where would you start?) (a time time) When would something (our Universe come into existence?)

If you accept the idea that time is Eternal and is Not Only an inherent part of our universe but would otherwise exist without it.
Then you would have to except the existence of something that always was, that our universe came from. ( DOES NOT HAVE TO BE GOD )

ubiquitous tactic of all arguments for god.

Unless I have drastically misunderstood the context here, and please correct me if I have.
No, none of my arguments are a support for GOD or a so-Called creator, in-fact it's the opposite.

It's kind of worse really, because you're really asking how A can and not A both be true. and that's just silly.

I seriously think you misinterpreted a lot of what I wrote.

Many of your posts imply that you don't understand that time can't exist without space, they're both part of some whole that I doubt we come close to understanding yet.

Unless I have worded something poorly, I'm more than positive I have Never implied this, or directly said anything close to this statement, please explain your statement.

 

[mechtheist]

Many of your posts imply that you don't understand that time can't exist without space, they're both part of some whole that I doubt we come close to understanding yet.

Unless I have worded something poorly, I'm more than positive I have Never implied this, or directly said anything close to this statement, please explain your statement.

"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. "
"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. "
"Then would you agree that time is eternal? Since if you are denying the possibility for the non-existence of time so then what's left is the existence of time. Including a "TIME" before our universe." [this one isn the same post FFS.

These statements most definitely see time as something independent of the universe but the universe is all of space-time by definition

This is incorrect, Darkness does exist it's called objective reality or ihyn better words Objective (Physical)

Meaning that something (aka Shadows/Darkness is actual (so it exists) independent of the mind.
Even if there were no one, or no living thing to see shadows or be aware of darkness, it would still exist. Unlike Coldness which is an experience created in our mind as a result of Physical reality. But without the being to experience it "COLDNESS" would not exist.

There is no argument here, you cant beam gravity, in other words something can exist even if you can't beam it or manipulate it. Beams of light can be created through the manipulation of light.

That is inane at best but it's really breathtakinglyinane sophistry. If shadows exist as some kind of physical reality, why don't you pick one up and move it someplace? It's a great story element in fantasy and science fiction, and especially comedy, but no one really believes in such nonsense. Are you just a troll? Most of what you say is word salad, almost gibberish. I now wish I hadn't bothered commenting. If darkness was something other than the absence of light then it should be possible to produce it intensely enough to override a light source,. Try explaining how that is possible. This is what I meant by 'beam', and you can 'beam' gravity, all you have to do is manipulate masses in such a way as to produce gravity waves in some shape, the GR solutions would likely prove difficult but they exist,

Your confusion is why you think coldness is different than shadows, both are only relative differences in something that does exist. Again, you can't create coldness in some form that doesn't involve removing heat.

Then would you agree that time is eternal?

No, and I'm not sure what that even means. The universe might be eternal, so time would be since it's part of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then time isn't eternal. The rest of that bit is too incoherent for me to address, e.g. "So if our universe has a time of existence, then there was a length of time it didn't exist right?" A length of time when time didn't exist? I think you're proving my point that our minds simply can't make sense out of an absence of time or some kind of existence without time, or outside of time.

I have no clue what your beliefs are and I doubt I could ever make sense of them but your argument about darkness seemed to be akin to a lot of the way creationist argue for the existence of god. You said "We all know, you can remove darkness with light, but how would you remove it without light?" But, removing light creates darkness, you just said that so what does it mean to 'remove darkness without light'? It's just incoherent nonsense because it's asking for something like A and NotA both being true, which is what I said already. If that question was getting at something else, it's beyond me to figure it out, you should have clarified your question but I doubt that's possible because almost nothing you've said is clear enough for mere rationale human beings to comprehend.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Its 4am and I shouldn't be replying but I'm giving my best shot with lack of sleep.

These statements most definitely see time as something independent of the universe, but the universe is all of space-time by definition

Our universe does not need to be all of existence and can most definitely be caused from a spontaneous event, we call the Big Bang.
I am saying I believe this event was an inevitable probability as a result of the existence of something else. What that is I cannot tell you.

That is inane at best but it's really breathtakinglyinane sophistry.

There is no fallacious, here only your lack of understanding from what I can tell, if you are unsure about what I wrote, you can just ask, and I can try to explain it in a better way.

If shadows exist as some kinds of physical reality, why don't you pick one up and move it someplace?

For the same reason you don't Pick up Gravity and move it somewhere else, it isn't Possible.
Gravity is a consequence of Warped Spacetime, you don't move it, if you could, you would move what is causing warped Spacetime, and that's mass. (Like planets)

Also are you saying that shadows would not exist, if we did not?
They most certainly can exist outside of our existence. I'm not sure what you mean, or why you are insinuating shadows don't exist as a part of physical reality.

No, and I'm not sure what that even means.

You summed it up pretty well. Let me help, Eternal would imply something that was always there, No beginning and no End.

The universe might be eternal, so time would be since it's part of the universe.

No, there is strong evidence that suggest the universe has an origin, and a beginning we are actually pretty sure it has a measurable age, of about 13.8 billion years. And there for is not eternal.

If the universe had a beginning, then time isn't eternal.

No, not necessarily time within our universe would have a beginning, but why would time only exist in our Universe?
This only works if you accept that our universe is all of Existence. And even then, doesn't make it true.

I think you're proving my point that our minds simply can't make sense out of an absence of time or some kind of existence without time, or outside of time.

Okay, Space and Time are Codependent, right? "Time can't exist without space they're both part of some whole that I doubt we come close to understanding yet." These are your words.

This automatically implies that they came into existence, together, alongside the very early stages of our universe.
So, you tell me, how can something come into existence without time?
How can something come into existence without space?
None of these as far as I know are possible and I'm sure we could both agree on this.

Matter requires both Time and Space would you not agree?
Without Space where would it come into existence?
Without Time When would it come into existence?
Do you see the issue here?


Could it be that Space Time and (Matter of some kind) has always existed? And our universe came into existence as a result of something that has always existed, again doesn't need to be a god.

Nothing you've said is clear enough for mere rationale human beings to comprehend.

Just because some people are not capable of accepting or comprehending what another person is saying, doesn't mean that its "word salad" Or "Gibberish"
With that said I'd like to stick to the topic here at hand and not start any unnecessary arguments off topic.

Your confusion is why you think coldness is different than shadows, both are only relative differences in something that does exist. Again, you can't create coldness in some form that doesn't involve removing heat.

The physical world, consist of things that cause Heat, and Cold, these things will exist without the need of life or something to experience the effects of each.

No matter if there is life or not, we know that the Sun would be a burning ball of gas and will produce what we call Heat. And whether life is present or not the absence of heat, will cause temperature to drop, these are not dependent on the existence of life.
What is dependent is the experiences that one may have, caused by the effects of these.
We know things are hot for many reasons, one of which is injury through burning.
We could not experience these without the effects Heat.
Our experiences exist in our mind, but the fact remains that the objective part of reality is what caused the experience.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The universe might be eternal, so time would be since it's part of the universe.

No, there is strong evidence that suggest the universe has an origin, and a beginning we are actually pretty sure it has a measurable age, of about 13.8 billion years. And there for is not eternal.

Perhaps it would help if the term universe was defined for this thread. I generally use it to mean everything that has, currently, and will exist. However, it appears you are not. Instead, many people seem to be using it as the presence of space-time since the Big Bang, which appears to be how you are using it.

 

[We are Borg]

Cold is the absence of heat that’s why there is a limit to cold. Heat has a limit too but its very high 142,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kelvin, give or take a few zeros. Absolute zero is where molecules stop moving but quantum theory says that there is still movement in quantum realm. If there was not physics would break down same with the upper limit to hot and molecules would break down with same result as cold.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Perhaps it would help if the term universe was defined for this thread. I generally use it to mean everything that has, currently, and will exist. However, it appears you are not. Instead, many people seem to be using it as the presence of space-time since the Big Bang, which appears to be how you are using it.

I could not agree more, it appears I have failed defined what I believe the universe to be. And is quite obviously different from the normal view.
I am claiming that our universe is not everything that exist but rather a very small part of the Existence of something much larger, in other words our universe is part of everything that exists but is not everything that exists.
I am claiming I believe it's just a result of an inevitable event, that was going to happen and continue to happen over an eternity of existence (of something else) again what that is I couldn't tell you, and we call this event the Big Bang.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Cold is the absence of heat that’s why there is a limit to cold. Heat has a limit too but it's very high 142,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kelvin, give or take a few zeros. Absolute zero is where molecules stop moving but quantum theory says that there is still movement in quantum realm. If there was not physics would break down same with the upper limit to hot and molecules would break down with same result as cold.

And I wouldn't disagree here, I am only claiming that these things exist, and I have been presented here with a statement above that claims both, Coldness does not exist, for the same reason shadows do not exist.

I do not agree with this statement, Coldness does not exist <---- this much I can accept, if what we mean by coldness is an experience, these are not objective reality, they cannot exist without a form of life to experience what we refer to as coldness.

Shadows on the other hand are Objective reality, shadows are actual and will exist regardless of the existence of life, they do not require the existence of life.
The experience from the effects Cold, aka (coldness) on the other hand does require the existence of life.
Shadows are a form of darkness, and shadows exist there for so does darkness, and these things are going to always exist.

 

[Mythtaken]

Could it be that Space Time and (Matter of some kind) has always existed? And our universe came into existence as a result of something that has always existed, again doesn't need to be a god.

Yes, time and space have always existed in our universe. I think I said this before. It is generally agreed that spacetime began when our universe began expanding from a singularity. So even though spacetime is finite in the past, there has never been a time within our universe when spacetime didn't exist.

However, you cannot say our universe came into existence as a result of something else. We have no knowledge of anything that might exist outside our universe. We can speculate on the existence of other universes that may have spawned ours through some unknown process. Or that this is simply the latest in an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. You can even say you 'believe' something eternal created our universe, but then you're back to the god thing.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

You can even say you 'believe' something eternal created our universe, but then you're back to the god thing.

This is incorrect, and proposes a belief from your standpoint that only God can be eternal, why can't the existence of something other than God be Eternal? Something that gave rise to events that our universe resulted from. I'm not here to argue proof of God, so if people would stop and actually read you will see it's the opposite.

Something can also be a result of something else, without the need for creation, or a creator.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Yes, time and space have always existed in our universe. I think I said this before. It is generally agreed that spacetime began when our universe

From this first initial response it is from my understanding that you did not read the entire question. Because you answered only part of the question and left out the important part. I have requoted myself please read carefully, because I'm not just asking about TIME and SPACE.

Could it be that Spacetime and (Matter of some kind) has always existed? And our universe came into existence as a result of something that has always existed, again doesn't need to be a god.