A Universe from Nothing…

[FWI]

The zero-energy universe theory originated in 1973, when Edward Tryon proposed, in the journal Nature that the universe emerged from a large-scale quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy, resulting in its positive mass-energy being exactly balanced by its negative gravitational potential and certain famous atheists have used this theory to claim that the universe we live in, came from nothing. I, for one, disagree and suggest that this is impossible.

So, what do you say about the claim that our universe came from nothing?

[FWI]

What is the alternative? All of these things exist whether God determines morality or societies do, so if you think this is a failing of humans striving towards righteousness and excellence does that mean you are also accusing God of failing at striving towards excellence and righteousness?

Of course each individual does reach varying conclusions but I was asking you what you were inferring about God.

Now, it seems that you are confused…I didn't bring God into the equation, you did! You also implied that virtues exist no matter who determines what they are. Which, is quite dangerous. Can: wrath, greed, lust, envy and gluttony be considered moral excellence? Yet, you suggest that if man decided so, they would be acceptable.

So, how would the failure of humans to implement virtue into their lives, affect God?

It's the humans who fail at this and the ones who reap the consequences. Not, God…Therefore, God desiring humans to strive towards moral excellence and righteousness is for the benefit of humans, not Himself. It seems that you have an understanding that God is trying desperately to control human destiny…This, of course, is a fallacy. God is allowing human destiny to take its own course, until it comes to the point, where unless He intervenes, humans will completely destroy themselves. Hence, humans have free-will and the only thing that stops many of them from completely rejecting moral actions (altogether) is the laws of man and the punishments that man dishes out, related to them…But, what's going to happen, when these types of restraints are removed?

So, I'm asking you again: Why are you blaming God for the decisions that humans make?

[Filthy Tugboat]

What is the alternative? All of these things exist whether God determines morality or societies do, so if you think this is a failing of humans striving towards righteousness and excellence does that mean you are also accusing God of failing at striving towards excellence and righteousness?

Of course each individual does reach varying conclusions but I was asking you what you were inferring about God.

Now, it seems that you are confused…I didn't bring God into the equation, you did! You also implied that virtues exist no matter who determines what they are. Which, is quite dangerous. Can: wrath, greed, lust, envy and gluttony be considered moral excellence? Yet, you suggest that if man decided so, they would be acceptable.

That is the world that we live in, yes. Do you not feel that greed especially is not evidently considered a virtue in modern western society? We are taught from day one how important money is and our society is structured now more than ever for the wealth to be hoarded at the top of the economic food chain.

So, how would the failure of humans to implement virtue into their lives, affect God?

God supposedly created humans with the intent to have a good creation, good being what he defines. He has decided we generally did not fit his definition of good. Therefore he failed in having a good creation.

So, I'm asking you again: Why are you blaming God for the decisions that humans make?

He supposedly gave us the ability to make those decisions and then decides to punish us for using our free will to do so. We can't make every possible free choice as we have limited agency, why would he punish us for using all of our limited agency in life? What is the point in giving us free will if using it would get us punished?

[FWI]

Since, we can now suspect that Filthy Tugboat is considering that the universe did not come to be by accident and that he is closer to the reality that God exists, than He doesn't (which is made clear by his interest in God's positions). We can continue with his desire to understand God's ways and some of the problems related to man, more clearly…

Can: wrath, greed, lust, envy and gluttony be considered moral excellence? Yet, you suggest that if man decided so, they would be acceptable.

That is the world that we live in, yes. Do you not feel that greed especially is not evidently considered a virtue in modern western society? We are taught from day one how important money is and our society is structured now more than ever for the wealth to be hoarded at the top of the economic food chain.

Yes, I would agree that greed does not fall into the category of moral excellence. However, this would depend on how greed is defined and who's doing the defining. Modern cultures have "redefined" greed as having more than what you need and/or whoever is rich is greedy. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Many, in our world today are wealthy, but are not driven by greed, it's quite the opposite: they are motivated by their own self-interest.

So, from a correct viewpoint greed fosters the taking of something that is not rightfully ours. Hence, your understanding of greed (as you explained in you rebuttal) is not correct. So, wealth is not a bad thing, nor are those who seek it, considered greedy (biblically speaking)…

Therefore, a person's "moral" self-interest seeks to satisfy, not only their self-interest, but the self-interest of others…This should be easily understood: A person who wants a job (self-interest) seeks out someone who would be looking to hire somebody (their self-interest). This same company produces a product (self-interest) to sell to others (their self-interest) and in the process the company becomes wealthy. This is not greed…This is a company governed by self-interest and this is not a bad way to do business! The harder you work, the more you get. The less you work, the less you get.

God supposedly created humans with the intent to have a good creation, good being what he defines. He has decided we generally did not fit his definition of good. Therefore he failed in having a good creation.

This is incorrect, the creation was created so that life would have a place to exist in and this by itself is good…Life also was created good, but in all situations there are conditions. Angels and humans have been given a choice to choose their own path. However, certain paths are correct and others are not. The idea that we can blame others for our mistakes is nonsense…However, we have the option to learn from our mistakes and take a different path. Therefore, the only other options, from God perspective, would be to have created programed robots or no life at all…Is this what you are proposing should have been done?

What is the point in giving us free will if using it would get us punished?

So, that deciding what is good and what is evil, won't be determined by man, but only by God.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Many, in our world today are wealthy, but are not driven by greed, it's quite the opposite: they are motivated by their own self-interest.

This definitely can be an exhibition of greed, here is an actual definition, since the one you supplied was the definition of stealing.

intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Self interest is being selfish, I don't think that it is inherently bad but in modern western society it is the primary goal, especially in regards to wealth and it is now worse than ever with the wealth gap continually growing larger than ever while others can barely keep out of poverty which is surprisingly expensive and which the banks and other greedy organisations and people prey on. They charge you for running out of money, they charge you for paying your bills late, they charge you higher interest rates, all for being poor. Wealthier people get treated better with less fees and lower interest rates. This is greed and it is systemic in the modern world. Our culture teaches us that being wealthy is good but nowadays it is hard to be wealthy without being greedy.

The harder you work, the more you get. The less you work, the less you get.

Do you know how much you need to earn to make a billion dollars? $21,000 p/h at 56 hours a week for almost 50 years. How does this absurd income get earned by "hard work"? There is no amount of hard work that deserves this income when we have a banking system designed to keep majority of people down.

This is incorrect, the creation was created so that life would have a place to exist in and this by itself is good…Life also was created good, but in all situations there are conditions. Angels and humans have been given a choice to choose their own path. However, certain paths are correct and others are not. The idea that we can blame others for our mistakes is nonsense…However, we have the option to learn from our mistakes and take a different path. Therefore, the only other options, from God perspective, would be to have created programed robots or no life at all…Is this what you are proposing should have been done?

I'm not making any propositions, only critiquing. Why is good defined the way it is and evil defined the way it is? Why can I not fly or teleport yet I can murder and steal. Why did God give free will with way less options but also the option to do evil. There's so many more options we cannot do, yet we can commit evil. We have such shitty free agency compared to the power God supposedly has to give us so much more.

So, that deciding what is good and what is evil, won't be determined by man, but only by God.

How dull, even still less free will for us. He didn't do a very good job of giving us free will.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 13 by Kenisaw]

If a god is all powerful and able to do anything, than it can know the future. In fact, it would HAVE to know the future, because it is all powerful and able to do anything, right? So can that same god change the future? I don't see how. If the all powerful, able to do anything god already knows the future, then it would already know if it was going to change the future. So the god in question can't change anything that it already knows, because it would have already known that before it decided to change the future...

Your particular god, as you've defined it, is illogical and can't exist.

Your view of God is incorrect and way to simplistic. God is a being that lives outside of our time continuum. He would have to in order to create the the universe in which we inhabit. God is also omniscience, omnipresent and unchanging God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

God is omnipresent at every point in space and at every momentment in time across all of time and all of space. Every moment to God is present tense. 2 thousand years ago is happening in the same moment as today. To God all of time is happening in the same moment. So can God control all things yes and he does control all things at the same time.

Can God change the future? He is in the future and the past and our present all at the same time and the same moment. It is only future to us, because we are bound to the space of our existence.

But to God past, present and future all exist and they all exist at the same time just like Einstein's equations say that they do.

[Diagoras]

Your view of God is incorrect and way to simplistic. God is a being that lives outside of our time continuum. He would have to in order to create the the universe in which we inhabit. God is also omniscience, omnipresent and unchanging God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

If God is a ‘being’, what exactly does that mean? The usual definition of ‘being’ is ‘having existence’, and that’s generally acknowledged to further mean ‘physically’, i.e. in the physical universe. If that’s true, then claiming that God ‘lives’ is also problematic. Again, what do you mean specifically here? The definition of life as it’s usually presented has a definite temporal component.

By claiming, without evidence, that God is a ‘special case’ that doesn’t need to follow physical laws, or even be a part of the physical universe and yet somehow (unexplained) interact with the universe - you are presenting a rather extreme case of special pleading.

But to God past, present and future all exist and they all exist at the same time just like Einstein's equations say that they do.

Not quite. Einstein’s comments were more that the distinction between past, present and future is not a fundamental feature of reality.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 3 by Jagella]

So I think a "universe from nothing" is very possible.

It would be helpful if you could explain how material objects and life can come from nothing.

Just a side bar here - Life doesn't come from "nothing". Every living thing is made up entirely of non-living parts. None of the atoms in you are alive in any sense of the word, yet the entirety of all those atoms, in their certain structures, give rise to what we call life.

Life is made up of the stuff found in the universe. Life doesn't violate any known law in the universe. Life comes from something - the stuff in the universe.

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

Once you say that something came from nothing, nothing becomes something doesn't it?
A quantum fluctuation brought something into the nothing or is it the other way around? Is it the chicken or the egg? Or both?
Can nothing become something and still claim that it was really nothing to begin with?
I'm not complaining, but this nothing seems to have alot more rules than your typical garden variety nothing.
Or is it the act of describing a nothing that brings you back to something?

I can wrap my head around the idea that there has and always will be something even if sometimes it looks like nothing but after that i start getting a headache.
Which goes to show that nothing can cause something I guess.

[Diagoras]

I'm not complaining, but this nothing seems to have alot more rules than your typical garden variety nothing.

I really liked this comment - I guess that’s why so many of us here struggle to understand the concepts involved.

I did go away and do a bit of ‘Google research’, but have to admit the mathematical language is well beyond me.

‘A Wick Rotation in the complex plane...’ as an example for talking about spacetime.

So we shouldn’t feel ‘dumb’, as we’re likely in the 99.999% of people who don’t understand the concepts.

[mgb]

Stephen Hawking never seems to make the distinction between no-thing and nothingness. They are not the same thing. No-thing is no nameable or created thing. It is the void which is not nothingness. Nothing is just that, nothing. ex nihilo nihil fit