Does The Universe Require a Creator?

[A Higher Enlightenment]

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.

Okay, so because we have no knowledge of something it can't exist. Is this your argument here, because it's not a very good one.

I can indeed say that I believe our universe came into existence from something else, because it did, regardless if you accept my beliefs or not. Lets talk about the big bang, you know that singularity that, is commonly talked about and is a working part of the big bang theory. Unless you want to call the singularity nothing.

Our universe most certainly points in that direction, that it originated from an incredibly dense and hot point, we refer to as the singularity.

 

[We are Borg]

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.

No space time had not always existed, when you had the singularity there was only just that the singularity. Space time was created by the expansion of the singularity it was an effect of. The models say that it’s still expanding so you would have an edge but you would not want to go outside the universe because the laws that govern this universe could not exist or are fundamental different.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

When you had the singularity there was only just that the singularity.

Although I am in agreement with you for the most part, I think we need to be careful when we make claims like this as if it is factual, because after all these are part of theories and are otherwise also falsifiable.

My point is we don't know if that is all there was. Our observations lead us to draw conclusions, or and come up with theoretical concepts, not saying we are wrong, but we also have to take into account that humans are fallible, and it is not out of the realm of possibility, that we have come to false conclusions based on limited knowledge and understanding of what we are observing. In other words, we could be wrong.

 

[Mythtaken]

I did read the entire question. I took it as self evident that our universe contains energy and matter, all of which began with the expansion.

Your statement about the singularity is confusing. I'm aware it is integral to the big bang theory and that it contained all of the energy and matter of our universe which then expanded out. However your previous statements indicated you believe the universe was created (or came to be) from something else. Perhaps if you expanded on that, I'd have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

For example there is a theory that makes sense (at least mathematically) that our current universe is inside a black hole. That could be an external source for the singularity, though we will likely never know, as we have no way currently to see either the very earliest time of our universe or anything outside of it.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

For example, there is a theory that makes sense (at least mathematically) that our current universe is inside a black hole.

Black holes emerge from Einstein’s equations of general relativity as a natural consequence of the death and collapse of massive stars.
Given what we know about BH right now, and how they are formed, in our universe. Then it is likely that if our universe does exist in a black hole, that black whole also exists with in another Universe. If we accept this theory, we must then grant the idea of a multiverse and theoretically speaking an infinite amount of other Universes.

However, your previous statements indicated you believe the universe was created (or came to be) from something else.

Not exactly, I have accepted the Big Bang, as the origin of our universe I have no reason to argue against it, but I reject that what we call our universe is all of Existence.

In light of this, my belief is this "What we refer to as the Big Bang is one of many different inevitable events that happened, through probability, it was bound to occur from the on-going events before the singularity. What those events are we could only speculate.
It is my belief that we are nothing special, our Universe has physical properties and restrictions, all of these inevitably lead to events that created stars and planets, solar systems and galaxies. Among billions of these some have by chance the necessary conditions to support so called life. We could conclude not all Planets and solar systems support life. If we apply this on a Multi Universal scale, we could conclude that there are universes like our own, but different enough that life isn't possible, maybe even the formation of stars is not possible.

With this being said, I would like to return to My main belief and that is Existence itself is Eternal, its Infinite no beginning no end, "Given an Eternity of Time and Existence", our universe was inevitable, every sequence of events that lead to where our universe is now, were all bound to happen eventually, and will continue to happen inevitably.

 

[Mythtaken]

I understand where you're coming from. I agree that life is not as unique as some would suggest. One of my primary problems with creationists is that they would diminish us; make us so small that life is tied only to this tiny planet. I suspect that life does, has, or will exist on many worlds throughout our galaxy, let alone the entire universe.

However, I have more trouble buying the idea that existence is eternal. I'm not even sure what that means. From our reference frame in this universe, we know there was a beginning, so there could be an end. We don't know what, if anything exists outside our universe. More, we don't have any idea if time is a concept that exists outside our universe. I think we need to be careful trying to apply the reality of our reference frame to anything outside of it. It's a bit like sitting on a carousal and coming to believe the world is in constant motion.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

I have more trouble buying the idea that existence is eternal. I'm not even sure what that means.

It's not hard to accept the idea that Existence is Eternal, if you understand why Nothingness is not a possibility. This goes back to the OP, if we grant it's not possible for there to be or have ever been Nothingness, we can only come to one conclusion.

If nothing isn't Something that can exist, what's left is Existence.
Existence in the sense is eternal, because it never came to be, it always was and always will be.
No beginning and no End.

Law of conservation of energy, is a really good example of this if you think about it.
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only transformed and transferred, that means energy has always Existed.

Unless science is wrong, and energy can be created, in this case the enormous amount of energy released from the Big Bang Singularity came from somewhere. I obviously do not agree with this.

 

[Mythtaken]

I'm not one who accepts that nothingness is impossible. I agree with it as it pertains to our universe. But we don't know what, if anything, exists outside our universe where all our physics and concepts may not hold. We know the universe is expanding. Is it expanding into something, perhaps pushing aside another universe, or is it simply creating itself as it goes from nothingness? We don't know.

Eternal is an expression of time. Does time exist outside our universe? Again, we don't know. According to our understanding, something cannot exist outside of time and space, so if there is no time outside the universe, there can be no existence.

I understand your examples, yet we know there are instances where the laws of Physics as we know them break down. Approaching the speed of light is one. Black holes are another. And prior to the big bang. That's one reason the black hole theory of the universe is appealing, because it avoids all those questions of nothing and something. We can theorize the singularity that caused the big bang was fed by the energy and matter the black hole drew in from the universe it exists in.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

For example there is a theory that makes sense (at least mathematically) that our current universe is inside a black hole.

Citation needed.

 

[Mythtaken]

Here's the basics of the theory with links to papers.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

or is it simply creating itself as it goes from nothingness?

That’s the thing I don’t think it came from nothingness. I will elaborate on this more within the next few hours but for the time being I’m going to rest my brain and go to sleep. But I would like to add I think we are getting somewhere with this topic, At least I think we are starting to understand each other’s viewpoints! And the good thing is there are no dumpster fires as of now!

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

I'm not one who accepts that nothingness is impossible. I agree with it as it pertains to our universe.

I have given plenty of examples on why this is not the case, and why it cannot be the case. I am not sure why you insist on using this term as if it is something that exists, or has ever existed. Nothingness is the opposite of existence.

Nothing isn’t something that exist because Nothing by its very nature is the total absence in the existence of anything.

Also if we grant that the singularity came from the existence of a black hole in another universe then our universe did not come from nothing it came from something.

And even if we don’t grant that the singularity was caused by a black hole.

It’s still remains according to theory that our universe came from the singularity, and the singularity is something and is not nothing.


If we were to grant that there was only the singularity before our universe This is still something and the idea of nothingness is not possible.

I’m not sure what you mean by nothingness pertains to our universe because the state of nothingness never was and will never be. Even after our universe has expanded beyond its capability to Support The formation of new stars galaxies planets and even life somethings in this universe will still exist.

 

[*SD*]

So many assertions, so little time. This is why I refrained from posting my response to your OP.

 

[Mythtaken]

You make some good points. Let me try to clarify my position.

I have a problem with the term Eternal because, as I've stated we know our universe had a beginning. Something can't have been eternal if it has a beginning, implying at one point it didn't exist. I also don't accept the idea of our universe continuing for ever because ...entropy.

Now we come to Existence and Nothing. I would argue the opposite of existence is non-existence, while the opposite of nothing is something. The distinction is important.

Within the reference frame of our universe, I agree we have no examples of nothing, and I accept there is no nothingness, just as science has said. It's when we talk about our universe as a thing that I become less certain, because we do not know what, if anything is outside of it. Given we have no reasonable expectation for our laws of physic to hold beyond the borders of the universe, I find it entirely possible for there to be nothingness there.

Now, your argument was more about Existence, rather than something vs nothing. Looking at that using our current big bang model, I'm still not convinced. Here's why.

We know the universe began with the big bang. Energy, matter, space time, all of it came out of the expansion of the universe. It began to exist. But what about prior to the expansion? We generally define existence as being alive, or possessing objective reality. Certainly there was "something" there (the singularity, for lack of a better term). But can we say our universe itself existed in that state? Did it have objective reality? I think it is more precise to say the universe was in a state of "potential existence".

We don't even know if the universe began to exist on the first go. According to Stephan Hawking, if the big bang had been smaller by as little as 1 part in a 100 thousand, million, million, the expansion would have collapse back in on itself. Maybe it did. It could have expanded and collapsed a hundred times, a million times, a million, million times before it had just the right amount of energy to continue expanding.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

You make some good points. Let me try to clarify my position.

I have a problem with the term Eternal because, as I've stated we know our universe had a beginning. Something can't have been eternal if it has a beginning, implying at one point it didn't exist. I also don't accept the idea of our universe continuing forever because ...entropy.

I agree our Universe is not Eternal. However, this doesn't give me any reason to believe it is everything that EXIST.

Now we come to Existence and Nothing. I would argue the opposite of existence is non-existence, while the opposite of nothing is something. The distinction is important.

I'm not too sure there are Distinctions here, I think Non-existence is possible when talk about things that don't exist or otherwise things that could not exist, but the BOLD CLAIM that there can be the absence of Anything that exist, is where we fall into what nothing is.

Both, Existence and Something are codependent, there has to be something for that Said, "Something to exist" This makes Existence Something.
There for the opposite of EXISTENCE/Something is Nothing. Or in other words the total ABSENCE of the existence of ANYTHING is Nothing.

We know the universe began with the big bang. Energy, matter, space time, all of it came out of the expansion of the universe.

I don't disagree with the big bang, but I wouldn't say we KNOW, after all this is a theory, it can be verified and falsified.

In good Example
E=mc-squared.
It’s commonly known that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only converted to something else.
Namely, energy can create matter and matter can be transformed back into energy.

If Energy may only be transferred or transformed, then energy was not from the BIG BANG, but instead would have already been there, the events of the Big Bang only transformed and transferred what energy was there already.

Can Energy Exist without SPACE AND TIME?
The answer is NO Actually:

So, if Energy cannot exist without space and time, but can also neither be created nor destroyed.
However, energy exist, then energy itself must be ETERNAL.
If Energy is Eternal for this reason, and required the existence of Space and time.
Then we must grant that Space and Time are Eternal as well or have also always existed, even outside of our universe.

It began to exist. But what about prior to the expansion?

We couldn't know as of now, and I'm not sure we will ever know, this is the main reason I " this is my belief" Because that what it boils down to.

We generally define existence as being alive or possessing objective reality. Certainly, there was "something" there (the singularity, for lack of a better term). But can we say our universe itself existed in that state? Did it have objective reality? I think it is more precise to say the universe was in a state of "potential existence".

We don't even know if the universe began to exist on the first go. It could have expanded and collapsed a hundred times, a million times, a million, million times before it had just the right amount of energy to continue expanding.

Good, I like this line of thinking it applies the idea of probability over time.
Now for a moment Grant the Idea of an infinite number of universes, all with their own so called BIG BANG, each Universe could theoretically have its own Physical Properties, one of Wich will support so called life, one like our own, its all-inevitable probability, given and Eternity of existence.

 

[Mythtaken]

So, if Energy cannot exist without space and time, but can also neither be created nor destroyed.
However, energy exist, then energy itself must be ETERNAL.
If Energy is Eternal for this reason, and required the existence of Space and time.
Then we must grant that Space and Time are Eternal as well or have also always existed, even outside of our universe.

The problem here is that Conservation of Energy and all other natural laws only pertain to what happens inside our universe. They don't apply outside the universe, or even to the universe itself.

Example: Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Except the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. That's why we talk about the "observable" universe vs the actual universe.

The same applies to the point at or prior to the expansion. There was no space time, so no conservation of energy, since that requires symmetry of time (Noether's Theorm).

Further, we can see an example of energy conservation breaking down even within our universe. As galaxies move away from us, the become red shifted, because the light traveling to us loses energy, increasing its wavelength.

We couldn't know as of now, and I'm not sure we will ever know, this is the main reason I " this is my belief" Because that what it boils down to.

Fair enough. We all have some things we choose to believe. That's part of being human.

Good, I like this line of thinking it applies the idea of probability over time.
Now for a moment Grant the Idea of an infinite number of universes, all with their own so called BIG BANG, each Universe could theoretically have its own Physical Properties, one of Wich will support so called life, one like our own, its all-inevitable probability, given and Eternity of existence.

I can certainly grant the "possibility" of that scenario. As much as I like the concept, though, we have to concede it is just a possibility that other universes exist beyond ours.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

The problem here is that Conservation of Energy and all other natural laws only pertain to what happens inside our universe.

I would not be so sure here, as we may be able to draw conclusions based on factual things, we know to be true, regardless of the "Universe"
I could still argue strongly that Energy is and has always been, along with Space and Time, (Eternal)

1.) Energy, Space and Time Exist.

2.) Energy Cannot Exist Without Space and Time.
B.) If Energy cannot Exist outside of space and time, but Space and Time came into existence though the Big Bang, this automatically applies to Energy too.
As energy is dependent on the existence of Space and time.

3.) Energy cannot be created.
A.) It is said our Universe as well as all of space and time, had a beginning, "The Big Bang"
However, If Energy Cannot be created then it does not have a beginning, and therefore Connot be a result of the Big Bang.

4.) If Energy was not a result of the Big Bang but is dependent on the existence of Space and Time.
This means Space and time are also not a result of the Big Bang.

So, either Conservation of Energy is wrong, or our understanding of Space and Time is far from accurate.

 

[mechtheist]

I kinda forgot about this, I apologize for being so late. There's been a lot of posts and I don't have the energy to respond individually.

First off, there's a lot of talk about the singularity at the beginning of the big bang, that singularity is in the maths, it's unknown but doubtful if there's actually one back then or in back holes, we just don't know because the maths break down, I don't think anyone has any idea what an actual physical singularity would be or mean. Was there something before the big bang? We don't know, period. There seems to be some stuff that's breaking cosmology, some new stuff on top of some stuff that's been around for awhile, e.g., Hubble Tension, maybe we'll get lucky and get a breakthrough. The universe is possibly eternal, possibly came into existence with the big bang, there is Andrei Liinde's ideas about an eternal inflation, fascinating stuff, see graphics that give you some idea of what it means. Since I'm pretty sure that's all the result of GR in some form, then the various bubble universes will exist as something in spacetime.

As far as I understand things as a non-physicist, spacetime is a thing, not space, not time, spacetime, you can't have one without the other. If the universe started at the big bang, then spacetime began then, so asking what happened before is incoherent, like asking what's south of the south pole. If anyone here is a physicist/cosmologist, maybe they can explain it better, and correct any errors, but the rest of us really shouldn't think can play in those leagues.

 

[mechtheist]

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

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.

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.

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.


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

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Like I said in previous post, too tired to respond to everything in detail. A couple of things exemplify your confusion.

why would time only exist in our Universe

Because it's part of the universe, see previous post.

Without Time When would it come into existence?

Again, statements like this just don't make sense, asking 'when' when there is no time is incoherent. Nothing can happen when there is no time because that would mean a change but change requires time. It almost forces you to see that it all has to start simultaneously.

The physical world, consist of things that cause Heat, and Cold

What causes cold? I'm beginning to think you don't know what heat is. If there's something that, in abundance we give a name to it, and if there's a dearth of this thing, we have another name for it, that doesn't mean the lack of that thing is a thing, we just have a name for that circumstance. Heat is the kinetic energy of a bunch of particles. It something has a high enough temperature, we'll call it 'hot', but as anyone who's moved from some hot climate to a cold climate will understand, folks can have very different ideas about what's hot and what's cold. 'Cold' is a relative thing, it simply makes no sense, it's incoherent, to talk about cold as independent of heat, it's just less heat than somewhere else, in fact, it's a category error because 'cold' really is about temperature and heat is the kinetic energy of particles, and temperature is just a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles. A white hot nail has less heat then a bath tub full of room temperature water. I don't know how to make it any simpler, try perusing a bunch of physics text books and I bet you won't find a definition of cold, won't find a theory of coldness, won't find anything about how to create cold in the laboratory, but you will find ways of making things colder by removing heat, which is nothing more than slowing down all those particles.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

If the universe started at the big bang, then spacetime began then

I addressed this in a previous message, and I am not convinced this is the case.