General Discussions > Philosophy

Does the universe have to have been created? (metaphysics/religion/atheism)

(1/7) > >>

Ex nihilo is the argument that something was created out of nothing.

I wonder if the universe was never created at all, or if the universe created itself (which links in with pantheism which may argue that 'God is the universe'). By never created at all, it doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist, but rather is an automatic manifestation, from a logical world.

Mathematically this could maybe work by re-imagining the concept of zero. Instead of nothing, it is instead two 'polarities'; +∞ and -∞ (but probably here you have to alter the meaning of infinity here to mean 'everything' as ∞-∞ is not necessarily 0), which together are zero, and always have been zero. This could explain why in physics charged atoms/molecules (known as ions) eventually decay until they have stable polarities.

All matter in the universe could also be a combination of polarities.

There is a fundamental problem with this thinking though; logic must have some kind of existence/form (a machine wouldn't work without its engine). There are questions about metaphysical nature of logic itself, which is confusing to talk about because we feel we are already part of a logical world in which we can come up with mathematics/logical axioms.

Additionally this argument doesn't address the dilemma of consciousness; why is it we project consciousness from ourselves and not everyone at the same time (or from no one)? Could there be an intelligent being which chooses who we are born as? If you had a clone who was physically the same as you, would you experience their consciousness too? Perhaps it depends on relative time; according to relativity we may all experience time at a slightly different rate due to factors like our relative velocity (maybe? I'm not qualified enough in physics to answer this.).

There is also the fact (from what has been tested from science so far) that the speed of light is a constant (3x10^8 m/s), which may raise an argument of whether it is a remnant of intelligent design.

This universe could also be one of many universes, not the 'highest' (if one exists), like the popular simulation idea.


Well if there a creator, who/what created the  creator? To me a creator explains nothing. I think there is an emotional need to have a creator for many. I think of looking at a field of grass or a forest  and everything is so specifically placed. Some are tall, others short, the spacing, it is tempting to think it was designed by something to be just so. No not really. I am who I am because of a very specific set of circumstances. If my parent had had a headache the night I was conceived I might not have happened at all. I could have very easily been born genetically  female had a different sperm fertilized the egg. No, I am not designed or destined to be. Don't buy it. If someone does though, I'm fine with it.

To fully understand the origin of the (a?) universe requires going beyond where current science can take us.  There are a few different ideas involving multiple universes that come and go.  For example, some consider a black hole in our universe to be a big bang in another.  There's another theory where universes are like bubbles in a foam, that independently form, grow and collapse.  There are also some theories that depend on quantum physics.  Please note that not currently understanding does not imply a creator.  As mentioned above, if you have a creator than something (someone?) else must have created the creator.  If this creator has supposedly always existed, then it much more likely that the universe or some trigger mechanism has always existed.  To claim the universe was created by some supernatural being is to yield to deliberate ignorance.

The bottom line is we don't currently know and may never know, but to attribute it to a "god" is nonsense.

My stance is simple on this. For there to be nothing, you have to have something. Lack of existence, predicates existence.

I could mangle some Kant as a roundabout explanation, but I prefer to leave it simple. ;D

--- Quote ---The bottom line is we don't currently know and may never know, but to attribute it to a "god" is nonsense.

--- End quote ---

But many of the greatest philosophers and critical thinkers in history, in fact many of the people who defined the very logic and reasoning modern agnostic and atheist philosophy is based on, found justification for belief in god--that was not just a product of culture at the times (they would dismantle everything, and build it back from scratch). The teleological argument is a perfect example of this. Of course if you mean explicitly something such as the anthropomorphized view of the Christian God and related dogma, that is a different matter entirely (in which arguments for are entirely a matter of faith regardless), but that requires a semantic distinction versus "a god" in general. Even more, many great minds in the truest sense have expressed beliefs that line up neatly with definitions of a god, even if they do not ascribe to any dogmatic beliefs.

Perhaps some of the greatest work into the nature and reality of existence was Descartes, all cliches aside, and he was quite devout in even a dogmatic sense. While Descartes's faith does not in the least define or influence my own, I believe it would be a mistake to dismiss his belief as nonsense simply by the strength of everything else he has done. (Basically, he's got some cred. ;D)


--- Quote ---found justification for belief in god--that was not just a product of culture at the times
--- End quote ---

Well, you'd better get busy explaining the existence of this god.  If you can't do that then claiming this god created the universe gets you nowhere.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version