How can the univese exist without God to create it?

[EarthScienceguy]

Explain the existence of the universe without God to create it.
In other words, how can the universe be shown to come into existence empirically without God to create it?

The basic building block of the universe is energy. We do not even know what energy in its most basic form is.

There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law – it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.

— The Feynman Lectures on Physics

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #188]

No - what I was asking you to do was explain what you think you are as an "I Am"...

For example, I Am a mind having an experience as a human being, on a planet in a universe. Do you understand your self in the same way, or something different?

I do not think as a mind experiencing being human that I have ultimate free will but restricted free will within the broader reality being experienced. This includes self responsibility as a matter of "it is what it is in the framework it emerges within...merges with..."

I did. We are an individual entity. Responsible for our own actions. Again, you would have to provide evidence that we are not individual entities, or what ever it is we are connected to.

I am understanding it from both viewpoints - not just QM within this universe...but as an inert infinite field of which but a fraction of a fraction of a disturbance through thought created this ongoing reality experience that Human Quantum Physicists refer to as "QM".

There are no two points of view. You would have to prove that there is an infinite field that can exist without space, which is not possible.

If you want to argue for QM in that light, best drop the idea we exist within a created thing, if you are unable to explain in detail how that thing was created without any material to create it with...

I did, two times already. Everything in this universe is made of energy. Energy is nothing. That is what Difflugia says if you want to believe him. Therefore, everything is made of nothing.

Because I don't claim that energy is nonmaterial.

Energy is nonmaterial. It acts on materials, but it is nothing.

Is that like a Ghost? Something else? If it is made of "nothing", what is the nothing it is made of?

No, it is like a spirit. God made energy; therefore, He cannot be made of energy. What makes you believe that God has to be made of anything? Mind, time, and mathematical objects are not made of anything material. Quantum fields are made of nothing. They are simply mathematical fields that fill the universe. Therefore, the universe is made of nothing.

Biblically this was achieved "from the dust of the earth"? That means material was used to create "man".

Not as you argue..."from nonmaterial".

I never said man was made of nothing. But technically, man and everything in this universe are made of nothing. (E=mc2)

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #191]

I Am a mind having an experience as a human being, on a planet in a universe. Do you understand your self in the same way, or something different?

I do not think as a mind experiencing being human that I have ultimate free will but restricted free will within the broader reality being experienced. This includes self responsibility as a matter of "it is what it is in the framework it emerges within...merges with...

We are an individual entity.

Yes. But what do you mean by that. Do you mean that you are a human body? Something else?

Responsible for our own actions.

Are your own actions also part of what you are?

You would have to prove that there is an infinite field that can exist without space

I think that is along the same lines as having to prove that there exists a non-material field that creates material things from non-material non things.

The best we can do is use our imaginations while consistently checking for under or overreaching.

An infinite field is by nature, its own space - it is one thing. Not "this thing" as opposed to "that thing".

Everything in this universe is made of energy. Energy is nothing.

I have answered that. Energy must be something in order for it to do what it does with itself, which is to create things energetically shaping the stuff of those things from that which already exists.

Energy is nonmaterial. It acts on materials, but it is nothing.

That is Oxymoron.
Furthermore, if one were to claim a creator (call it "god" if you will) created these things, the wording would be "God is nonmaterial. It acts on materials, but it is nothing."

Is that like a Ghost? Something else? If it is made of "nothing", what is the nothing it is made of?

No, it is like a spirit.

Are you saying that a "Ghost" is not "like a spirit"?

God made energy; therefore, He cannot be made of energy.

God made energy but energy is made of nothing, therefore god made nothing?

What makes you believe that God has to be made of anything?

It not so much a belief as it is common sense...

Mind, time, and mathematical objects are not made of anything material.

Without mind, time and mathematical objects would not be observed as non-material concepts.
Thus, I do not place mind/mindfulness as something which in "not made of anything material".

Quantum fields are made of nothing.

No - they consist of an unknown particle which is the foundation of all known particles. To call the unknown particle "nothing" is intellectual laziness at best.

They are simply mathematical fields that fill the universe. Therefore, the universe is made of nothing.

Yet here we are all thinking it is real.

Biblically this was achieved "from the dust of the earth"? That means material was used to create "man".

Not as you argue..."from nonmaterial".

I never said man was made of nothing. But technically, man and everything in this universe are made of nothing. (E=mc2)

So which are you arguing for? Man is made of something or man is made of nothing?

In a recent post you argued:

I am real and I have free will.

How do you fit this "I am" that you are into your subsequent claim that "everything in this universe are made of nothing."

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #190]

I'm saying you can't support rejection of the causal principle (as more than a logical possibility) by saying "there is no cause" is the null hypothesis. Doing so misapplies the conceptual tool of 'null hypothesis,' which itself works within causal regularity.

I don't think it does. If your hypothesis is that there is a cause, then the null hypothesis is that there is no cause. I feel like you're trying to word game yourself out of that conclusion. The concept of a null hypothesis only requires "causal regularity" to be true in the case of its rejection. If we're expressing it as part of a drug trial, for example, the hypothesis is that Tylenol reduces the severity of headaches. The null hypothesis is simply that it does not. If the trial data are such that our drug has no statistically significant effect on headache severity, then we accept the null hypothesis that doesn't work. Even if I presume that there's some cause for headaches and a way to cause them to stop, those presumptions isn't necessary to the conclusion that our drug doesn't do anything.

Before we even tentatively say that nothing stops headaches, we should probably try a few more things. At some point, though, when we've tried many more things, we'll hit a point where "nothing works" starts to fill more of the probability pie.[/quote]

Perhaps the name is fooling you here. The null hypothesis is just the baseline assumption. The null hypothesis (H0) for Fisher when testing Mendel's pea data, for instance, was that the pea data followed Mendel's theoretical ratios (3:1 dominant to recessive) and H1 was that they don't follow that method. The null is just the starting assumption. It's a hypothesis of how the data would behave if the currently accepted explanation is true so that alternative theories can be statistically compared to it.

If you are testing a new antiviral drug for Covid-19, the null hypothesis could be that the new drug has the same average recovery time as the current standard treatment. The alternative hypothesis would be that the new drug changes the recovery time. The null isn't necessarily that the drug doesn't provide any average recovery time.

The data we have is not that quantum events are uncaused, but that they may be uncaused.

You're playing word games now. What you're claiming as an important truth for your argument is true for any scientific conclusion. The data suggest that the Sun may be composed principally of helium. The data suggest that bacteria and viruses may be responsible for many diseases. The data suggest that turning on a light switch may be responsible for the light turning on. None of these are proven, but every time we test, that's how things shake out.

No, I may be wrong but not for playing with the words. I don't think the empirical data puts quantum events being uncaused on the same level as the Sun being composed principally of helium and your other examples. The Copenhagen interpretation is empirically equivalent to a Bohmian one. If you think the data proves otherwise, make that case.

Then there is nowhere in the universe to test if things can come into existence without a cause. Even if it's true that everything in the universe must be caused by fluctuations in the quantum vacuum, then that still gives us exactly zero information about things that begin to exist outside of the universe, like the universe itself. The universe simply isn't in the set of things to which P1 applies.

Yes, logically, you can't scientifically test "nothing"...by definition...if that is what you mean. Science studies the physical world and true "nothing" is the absence of everything, including physical things. But if physical things can come into existence uncaused, one would expect the total energy in the universe to be consistently added to from time to time as well as other consequences that could be tested for. Yes, there are other logically possible theories that could be offered for that, if it happened, but we aren't shooting for 100% certainty.

As far as things outside the universe, what do you mean? The universe isn't outside of the universe.

There are no experimental data showing us "where quantum fluctuations actually come from," regardless of how I imagine that you're using the word "cause." That may be a limitation of my imagination and where one of our fundamental differences arises, but I suspect that if that's true, then we're just back to the Kalam being meaningless as opposed to false or falsifiable.

The quantum field isn't a nothing and the fluctuations are happening within those fields, aren't they? Perhaps the name is fooling me here. If I haven't misunderstood, I don't see how that makes the Kalam meaningless.

This conflates empirical causality with the metaphysical causal principle. If immaterial things began to exist, the causal principle would say those things also need a cause. That means it isn't just constrained to things within our physical universe. While it may be untrue, it isn't meaningless.

I literally have no clue what distinction you're trying to make and what meaning I should derive from that. It really sounds to me like you're trying to claim some philosophical principle that transcends data collection and analysis. If that's the case, then I likely won't find any conclusions you draw from it at all convincing.

If you aren't convinced simply because it comes from something outside of data collection and analysis, then you aren't convinced for a very poor reason, a self-defeating reason in fact.

You had said that we can only know the truth of P1 from within this universe. I was saying the metaphysical causal principle would apply beyond that to where immaterial effects also need causes. Being non-physical wouldn't take that requirement away. Thus, P1 is not limited to simply the set of things in the universe.

To avoid an infinite regress there has to be a timelessly eternal thing. This isn't special pleading, but logical analysis of the concepts themselves.

"Timelessly eternal" is an oxymoron by my definitions of those two words. If something is eternal, it's not timeless. If something is timeless or "outside of time," it can't be eternal.

If you can find definitions for "timeless" and "eternal" that are both mutually compatible and meaningful within the current context, I'll listen.

Traditionally, 'eternal' was used to mean 'timeless'. I was simply trying to distinguish the different senses of 'eternal'. In your language, an eternal thing would not avoid an infinite regress.

[Tcg]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1]

You've got it backwards. No surprise there. God wouldn't exist without the universe. Most specifically, without humans in the universe to have created the mythology of God. The only place God can be shown to exist is in the imagination of humans. Clearly then, God is imaginary.

Tcg

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #192]

No - they consist of an unknown particle which is the foundation of all known particles. To call the unknown particle "nothing" is intellectual laziness at best.

They are definitely not made of particles; they are made of energy, which is nothing.

So which are you arguing for? Man is made of something or man is made of nothing?

For the fourth time, I never said that man was made of nothing. Your question was how a non-material being, which does not consist of matter or energy, can create matter. My answer was that everything was made of energy, which is nothing. Therefore, a nonmaterial being could have and did create the universe. If you have a problem with everything being made of nothing, then what particles make up energy? Quantum field theory is a testament to the idea that the universe was made by God ex nihilo. The field is nothing that makes everything.

Your quantum fields are part of this universe; therefore, they did not come into existence until the universe came into existence. You have no proof that a quantum field can exist without space. The essence of energy is nothing; therefore, it could have come from nothing.

[Difflugia]

Perhaps the name is fooling you here.

Or not.

The null hypothesis is just the baseline assumption. The null hypothesis (H0) for Fisher when testing Mendel's pea data, for instance, was that the pea data followed Mendel's theoretical ratios (3:1 dominant to recessive) and H1 was that they don't follow that method. The null is just the starting assumption. It's a hypothesis of how the data would behave if the currently accepted explanation is true so that alternative theories can be statistically compared to it.

You keep trying to word this so you get something for free. The concept of the null hypothesis doesn't build in anything about "accepted explanation." If I'm testing Tylenol's effect on headaches, the traditionally accepted placement of the leeches doesn't matter. The null hypothesis for X is not X. If you want to believe not X, but a goodly bleed with leeches, that's fine, but that's going farther than the null hypothesis.

If you are testing a new antiviral drug for Covid-19, the null hypothesis could be that the new drug has the same average recovery time as the current standard treatment. The alternative hypothesis would be that the new drug changes the recovery time. The null isn't necessarily that the drug doesn't provide any average recovery time.

That's right. The null hypothesis is appropriate to the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is that quantum events are caused, then the null hypothesis is that they aren't.

No, I may be wrong but not for playing with the words. I don't think the empirical data puts quantum events being uncaused on the same level as the Sun being composed principally of helium and your other examples. The Copenhagen interpretation is empirically equivalent to a Bohmian one. If you think the data proves otherwise, make that case.

Do you recognize the implication of this? If apparently uncaused events are indistinguishable from your claimed causal mechanism, then you're still claiming that principles like the null hypothesis and Occam's Razor are meaningless. De Broglie-Bohm posits determinism, but also that the initial state of the universe is unknowable in principle, so it can never be tested. Copenhagen describes the universe exactly as we see it. Many Worlds describes the universe without wave collapse and indeterminism, but the cost is an infinity of undetectable parallel worlds. De Broglie-Bohm describes the universe without wave collapse and indeterminism, but the cost is a universal wave function that is undetectable and unknowable.

No matter from which angle you look, the empirical data are that there is no cause. You can reword that if you want to, but "there is no cause that we can detect" means the same thing. "There is no milk in the jug" is empirically equivalant to "there is no milk in the jug that we can detect." You're surrounded by people telling you for ideological reasons that there's milk in the jug, trust me, and you're claiming that it's up to me to prove that there's no milk in the jug. Physicists can only turn the jug upside down so many times. Extending that the Sun/helium analogy, De Broglie-Bohm is like claiming that the Sun is made of helium in addition to something that can't be detected. As the old saying goes, that and a nickel will get you a cup of coffee.

Yes, logically, you can't scientifically test "nothing"...by definition...if that is what you mean.

That's sort of what I mean. As far as we can tell, a vacuum is nothing except for the particles that keep appearing and disappearing. You and Craig are the ones defining the vacuum as containing something out of which those particles appear, but otherwise undetectable. If the former is the true state of the universe, then P1 is simply false. If the latter is the true state of the universe, then we have no information about the truth of P1.

Science studies the physical world and true "nothing" is the absence of everything, including physical things. But if physical things can come into existence uncaused, one would expect

If physical things can come into existence uncaused, one would expect things to sometimes appear out of nothing. It looks like that is happening. Some people claim that's not really what's happening, but empirically it is.

the total energy in the universe to be consistently added to from time to time as well as other consequences that could be tested for.

Why? Current "something from nothing" cosmologies still acknowledge conservation of energy. If "zero net energy" is a part of a cosmological hypothesis, as it is with cosmologies based on quantum fluctuation, why would you expect violation of that exact constraint? If that's you're argument, then once again, you're just saying that things are different inside the universe than they are for the universe itself. You'd be back to no information about P1.

If you want a similar argument that runs the other way, De Broglie-Bohm gives identical answers to Copenhagen only as long as quantum equilibrium holds true throughout the universe. Within De Broglie-Bohm, there's no particular reason why that must be true, but it's supported by experimental data.

Yes, there are other logically possible theories that could be offered for that, if it happened, but we aren't shooting for 100% certainty.

I'm fine with less than certain, but the only reason you've yet offered for why quantum events are caused is that you think (or somebody else thinks) that they ought to be.

As far as things outside the universe, what do you mean? The universe isn't outside of the universe.

It's not inside the universe, either, which is the space for which we know things.

The quantum field isn't a nothing and the fluctuations are happening within those fields, aren't they? Perhaps the name is fooling me here. If I haven't misunderstood, I don't see how that makes the Kalam meaningless.

If the quantum field is real, then everything that comes into existence within the universe is within the quantum field. The universe didn't have a quantum field in which to begin existing. We have no other information, so P1 applying to universes is based on no information.

If you aren't convinced simply because it comes from something outside of data collection and analysis, then you aren't convinced for a very poor reason, a self-defeating reason in fact.

If you say so. I'm still watching my navel for updates.

You had said that we can only know the truth of P1 from within this universe. I was saying the metaphysical causal principle would apply beyond that to where immaterial effects also need causes. Being non-physical wouldn't take that requirement away. Thus, P1 is not limited to simply the set of things in the universe.

No updates about that, either.

Traditionally, 'eternal' was used to mean 'timeless'. I was simply trying to distinguish the different senses of 'eternal'. In your language, an eternal thing would not avoid an infinite regress.

If "eternal" means "for all time," then time began when the universe began. There's a beginning, so no infinite regress. Timeless means there's no time into which to infinitely regress. Pick one.

For the record, I'm also not convinced that "infinite regress" is even a valid concept when applied to time and reality. If the universe is cyclical, then time could be, like the current concept of space, finite, but unbounded.

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #195]

As I have pointed out, if we are to accept that things are really not things, (because you argued "Everything in this universe is made of energy. Energy is nothing." and that the god that created a nothing "energy" is also made on nothing, we have to be able to explain how this happened.

I pointed out that evidence of sound having something to do with moving energy in the formations of Galaxies.

The idea that sound was the main factor in creations of the universe is not uncommon, and even biblical.

"let there be light"
AI Overview:
The Creation Story: Day 1 – Let there be Light! – Connecting ...
"Let there be light" is a famous quote from the Book of Genesis in the Bible, where it signifies God's command to create light on the first day of creation.

The phrase has also been used as the title for several films and is associated with other cultural and religious contexts, such as the Hindu festival of Deepavali - the lighting of lamps during Deepavali, a Hindu festival that symbolizes the triumph of light over darkness.

Biblical origin: The phrase is a translation of the Hebrew text yəhî ʾôr from Genesis 1:3. It represents a command to the void, spoken by God, to bring light into existence.

First day of creation: According to Genesis, this was one of the first acts of creation, which involved God separating light from darkness and naming them Day and Night.

Figurative meaning: It can be interpreted as the first manifestation of energy and a powerful symbol of creation, hope, and the overcoming of darkness.

You appear to be arguing that sound had nothing to do with moving energy which in turn formed things. Rather you are arguing that a non-material being somehow created something from nothing, and that energy also is nothing.
If you insist on arguing for an immaterial "God" you will have to explain how an immaterial non-thing can create material things.

You didn't answer my question "are you saying that a "Ghost" is not "like a spirit"?"

For the fourth time, I never said that man was made of nothing.

Nor did you really answer my question. When you think of your "self" - what and who you are - what is your answer? I gave an example of what I meant by saying what I think I am.

I Am a mind having an experience as a human being, on a planet in a universe. Do you understand your "self "in the same way, or in some other way?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Tcg in post #194]

You've got it backwards. No surprise there. God wouldn't exist without the universe. Most specifically, without humans in the universe to have created the mythology of God. The only place God can be shown to exist is in the imagination of humans. Clearly then, God is imaginary.

Tcg

The universe can't exist without God. It is not even possible to produce the universe singular like the one we exist in modern cosmology.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #197]

As I have pointed out, if we are to accept that things are really not things, (because you argued "Everything in this universe is made of energy. Energy is nothing." and that the god that created a nothing "energy" is also made on nothing, we have to be able to explain how this happened.

If there were a process, then creation would not be ex nilio. So what are you asking?

I pointed out that evidence of sound having something to do with moving energy in the formations of Galaxies.

The idea that sound was the main factor in creations of the universe is not uncommon, and even biblical.

Yea, wow, sound had nothing to do with the formation of the universe.

let there be light"
AI Overview:
The Creation Story: Day 1 – Let there be Light! – Connecting ...
"Let there be light" is a famous quote from the Book of Genesis in the Bible, where it signifies God's command to create light on the first day of creation.

The phrase has also been used as the title for several films and is associated with other cultural and religious contexts, such as the Hindu festival of Deepavali - the lighting of lamps during Deepavali, a Hindu festival that symbolizes the triumph of light over darkness.

Biblical origin: The phrase is a translation of the Hebrew text yəhî ʾôr from Genesis 1:3. It represents a command to the void, spoken by God, to bring light into existence.

First day of creation: According to Genesis, this was one of the first acts of creation, which involved God separating light from darkness and naming them Day and Night.

The first thing God created was the heavens and the earth. "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" verse 2. Yes the void that God made when He made the heavens and the Earth.

If you insist on arguing for an immaterial "God" you will have to explain how an immaterial non-thing can create material things.

What is the point of this question? God created the material matter the same way a painter creates a great work of art that has never existed before. Or an invent creates something that has never existed before. God created the medium and began to paint. Creation was ex nilo so again it was made out of nothing. He created space and the quantum field that has to exist within space.

I Am a mind having an experience as a human being, on a planet in a universe. Do you understand your "self "in the same way, or in some other way?

This is outside the OP. Which always ends up in a long rabbit trail.

You have not answered how a quantum field can exist without space.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #196]

The null hypothesis is just the baseline assumption. The null hypothesis (H0) for Fisher when testing Mendel's pea data, for instance, was that the pea data followed Mendel's theoretical ratios (3:1 dominant to recessive) and H1 was that they don't follow that method. The null is just the starting assumption. It's a hypothesis of how the data would behave if the currently accepted explanation is true so that alternative theories can be statistically compared to it.

You keep trying to word this so you get something for free. The concept of the null hypothesis doesn't build in anything about "accepted explanation." If I'm testing Tylenol's effect on headaches, the traditionally accepted placement of the leeches doesn't matter. The null hypothesis for X is not X. If you want to believe not X, but a goodly bleed with leeches, that's fine, but that's going farther than the null hypothesis.

If you invented Tylenol at the time when the usual treatment was leeches and you wanted to statiscally compare the two treatments to rationally convince others that your product worked, then you would have the leech treatment as the null hypothesis, just like Fisher, the creator of the term 'null hypothesis', did when examining Mendel's claims.

If you are testing a new antiviral drug for Covid-19, the null hypothesis could be that the new drug has the same average recovery time as the current standard treatment. The alternative hypothesis would be that the new drug changes the recovery time. The null isn't necessarily that the drug doesn't provide any average recovery time.

That's right. The null hypothesis is appropriate to the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is that quantum events are caused, then the null hypothesis is that they aren't.

So, if the hypothesis is that quantum events are uncaused, then the null hypothesis is that they are caused?

No, I may be wrong but not for playing with the words. I don't think the empirical data puts quantum events being uncaused on the same level as the Sun being composed principally of helium and your other examples. The Copenhagen interpretation is empirically equivalent to a Bohmian one. If you think the data proves otherwise, make that case.

Do you recognize the implication of this? If apparently uncaused events are indistinguishable from your claimed causal mechanism, then you're still claiming that principles like the null hypothesis and Occam's Razor are meaningless.

De Broglie-Bohm posits determinism, but also that the initial state of the universe is unknowable in principle, so it can never be tested. Copenhagen describes the universe exactly as we see it. Many Worlds describes the universe without wave collapse and indeterminism, but the cost is an infinity of undetectable parallel worlds. De Broglie-Bohm describes the universe without wave collapse and indeterminism, but the cost is a universal wave function that is undetectable and unknowable.

No matter from which angle you look, the empirical data are that there is no cause. You can reword that if you want to, but "there is no cause that we can detect" means the same thing. "There is no milk in the jug" is empirically equivalant to "there is no milk in the jug that we can detect." You're surrounded by people telling you for ideological reasons that there's milk in the jug, trust me, and you're claiming that it's up to me to prove that there's no milk in the jug. Physicists can only turn the jug upside down so many times. Extending that the Sun/helium analogy, De Broglie-Bohm is like claiming that the Sun is made of helium in addition to something that can't be detected. As the old saying goes, that and a nickel will get you a cup of coffee.

I'm disputing that the events are "apparently" uncaused. Saying that Copenhagen describes the universe exactly as we see is just a claim; where is the evidence for this? All the major interpretations reproduce the exact same experimental predictions. The Copenhagen interpretation posits the wave function collapse, which is not an empirical observation, in order to explain how we get from a deterministic wave function to the indeterministic, definite measurements.

Parsimony is more complex than just counting causes. It's about fewer assumptions consistent with explanatory adequacy. Each interpretation adds elements that fall under the "assumptions" category, including the Copenhagen wave function collapse.

To address your analogy, no one is actually looking at the jug and seeing it empty or full of milk (if efficient causation is equivalent to milk). We have some observations about the jug that we all agree on. Then we are describing what we think about the milk level in that jug.

But, P1 isn't just talking about efficient causation. And, there, we do see there is milk, as the quantum field, with specific properties, exists and, out of this, certain other things happen.

Yes, logically, you can't scientifically test "nothing"...by definition...if that is what you mean.

That's sort of what I mean. As far as we can tell, a vacuum is nothing except for the particles that keep appearing and disappearing. You and Craig are the ones defining the vacuum as containing something out of which those particles appear, but otherwise undetectable. If the former is the true state of the universe, then P1 is simply false. If the latter is the true state of the universe, then we have no information about the truth of P1.

As I understand it, even removing out the particles, quantum fields still exist with definite properites such as energy density, pressure, structure that can be modified. A vacuum is the lowest-energy state of a field. P1 still applies here because the fluctuations wouldn't occur if the field isn't there at all.

Science studies the physical world and true "nothing" is the absence of everything, including physical things. But if physical things can come into existence uncaused, one would expect

If physical things can come into existence uncaused, one would expect things to sometimes appear out of nothing. It looks like that is happening. Some people claim that's not really what's happening, but empirically it is.

No, empirically it isn't. It's an interpretative overlay called a "collapse".

the total energy in the universe to be consistently added to from time to time as well as other consequences that could be tested for.

Why? Current "something from nothing" cosmologies still acknowledge conservation of energy. If "zero net energy" is a part of a cosmological hypothesis, as it is with cosmologies based on quantum fluctuation, why would you expect violation of that exact constraint? If that's you're argument, then once again, you're just saying that things are different inside the universe than they are for the universe itself. You'd be back to no information about P1.

If energy isn't being added, then things are just being transformed from energy already present. That's why the quantum fluctuations aren't a counter to P1. Yes, they may be randomly caused transformations, but there is still a necessary causal precursor to those transformations that need to be explained.

As far as things outside the universe, what do you mean? The universe isn't outside of the universe.

.

It's not inside the universe, either, which is the space for which we know things.

It is the universe; you are talking as though it is distinct from it.

The quantum field isn't a nothing and the fluctuations are happening within those fields, aren't they? Perhaps the name is fooling me here. If I haven't misunderstood, I don't see how that makes the Kalam meaningless.

If the quantum field is real, then everything that comes into existence within the universe is within the quantum field. The universe didn't have a quantum field in which to begin existing. We have no other information, so P1 applying to universes is based on no information.

The universe is the collection of field and everything else that is physical; it's not some separate physical thing.

If you aren't convinced simply because it comes from something outside of data collection and analysis, then you aren't convinced for a very poor reason, a self-defeating reason in fact.

If you say so. I'm still watching my navel for updates.

You can rhetorically dismiss logic all you want, but it's more rational to deal with it.

Traditionally, 'eternal' was used to mean 'timeless'. I was simply trying to distinguish the different senses of 'eternal'. In your language, an eternal thing would not avoid an infinite regress.

If "eternal" means "for all time," then time began when the universe began. There's a beginning, so no infinite regress. Timeless means there's no time into which to infinitely regress. Pick one.

Why think eternal means "for all time"? I thought you meant it in the normal sense of existing forever without beginning or end; having never not existed. That would be an infinite regress.

If the universe began to exist (along with time so that one could rightly say the universe has existed for all time), then no infinite regress, but it still needs an explanation.

Infinite regress isn't just a temporal concept. It applies to a wider range of things, such as causation. The issue with a timeless element to the physical universe that causes the rest is the creation of a temporal effect by an impersonal cause.

For the record, I'm also not convinced that "infinite regress" is even a valid concept when applied to time and reality. If the universe is cyclical, then time could be, like the current concept of space, finite, but unbounded.

How is the current concept of space one of being finite but unbounded? And how does cyclical time make sense?