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 Haven in post #26]

To think that anything else exists outside of this one universe is a belief that is not based in science.
This is false, as shown above (and in previous posts). And if it were true, it would totally undermine your own position (because your god would also reside outside of our observable universe). In your haste to dismantle my view, you’ve defeated your own.

No, I did not. This is my position. Anything that exists outside of this universe has to be taken on faith and believed. Because it is impossible to peer outside of this universe with the tools of science.

I’ll also ask what your background in physics is. Your posts seem to position yourself as an authoritative voice in the field, yet I’ve seen you make very basic errors (such as declaring that energy isn’t physical) that a PhD physicist wouldn’t make.

I guess Feynman will have to give his Ph.D. back.

I’m not a proponent of string theory. You’re arguing against ghosts here.

I have been because the multiverse theory is not really a theory, it is a philosophical tenet of sciencism, and you have not defined which multiverse theory you are describing. Therefore, I do not know if you believe yourself to be god creating universes at will, or if you are "just a piece of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato," inside of a Boltzmann brain. (That was a quote from "A Christmas Carol"). Just for future reference. Are you a capital G god or a lower-case god?

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1]

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?

Let's examine the question then - there is no particular definition given by ESG as to what they mean by "God".
Breaking that down, the real argument isn't which "god" created the universe but that we exist in a created reality.

If we exist within a created thing then we can at least assume that the creator(s) are conscious and intelligent, but need not go beyond that...

(We can thus rule out a deist god.)

Given the evidence of observation, it can be argued that the creator(s) created from the inside out, meaning that the stuff to create with already existed unshaped - like a blank slate which could be activated through the mindful interaction of said creator(s)

Further to that, we cannot automatically assume that there is an "elsewhere" from which the creator(s) entered the blank slate state and shaped this universe independently from "elsewhere" - the blank slate could simple be a "Region" within a larger shaped thing - or to simplify that concept - our universe could be within a creator mind which itself, is not outside of anything "else"...

...and this idea does not overstep what is observed...

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #25]

I'm asking about what you call the how question (sorry for my confusing use of "why" in my last post). From your post, you seem to be saying you are aware there are evidences that atheists use to explain their answer to the how question (what those are doesn't matter for my clarifying question to you here). You also seem to be saying that you think some attempts at an explanation will explain the evidence available to us better than others.

My next question, then, would be: do you think any atheistic offerings are good tentative answers to the how question? Or are all atheistic tentative answers not good enough (perhaps because you think 100% certainty is required)? I don't want to misunderstand you and then talk past you, so please help me to understand you correctly. I appreciate your patience with me and apologize for the difficulty on my part so far.

As to your question about theistic possibilities and their comparison, that is a great question, that I will gladly eventually get to, but for the moment I'd like to focus on the initial question of this thread and understanding what you and Haven (and others) are claiming so that I can better engage your thoughts.

[The Tanager]

However, “universe” in physics refers to the totality of that which physically exists. It doesn’t just refer to our observable bubble of spacetime, as I’ve stressed over and over again here. This rescues your view from abject unfalsifiability, as long as you can support it with evidence.

Is your claim in this thread that the multiverse explains our "bubble" or that the multiverse explains the 'universe' as defined above?

[POI]

If you do not know, then why are you even commenting?

I'm here to point out your fallacious reasoning. Which, by no means, is a credible argument FOR a god. I'll explain below.

I have been seeing this claim of agnosticism more and more with the utter failure of metaphysical naturalism.

"Therefore, god."

We know we are here, and at some point in the past, the universe was not here.

"Therefore, god."

Therefore, the universe needs a cause.

"Therefore, god."

Matter only exists with the fundamental constants that exist in this universe.

"Therefore, god."

Therefore, matter did not exist before this universe.

"Therefore, god."

What non-material idea do you believe made this universe? Oh yeah, you don't know.

"Therefore, god."

And science just does not know YET.

"Therefore, god."

This would make you a believer in scientism.

I smell a strawman argument coming. Why do you "label" me this?

There is no evidence that science can even come up with a solution.

"Therefore, god."

Whatever that solution is, the physics of the problem describes the solution as a non-material entity that fine-tuned this universe for life.

Why?

*********************

Is it even possible that materialism, in one form or another, has always existed? If so, then the claim to 'creationism' is purely nonsensical. Or how about if the "universe" is eternal? If this is the case, then again, the assertion to 'creationism' would then be nonsensical.

You are placing the cart before the horse. You must first demonstrate the mere existence of this 'god' before you go around invoking his actions upon what we have yet to discover. If you can demonstrate god's existence, then we can add god to the option(s) list above regarding how and why the "universe" is here. To instead do so, without first demonstrating his mere existence, is absolutely no different than Clownboat's point.

[Haven]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #31]

No, I did not. This is my position. Anything that exists outside of this universe has to be taken on faith and believed. Because it is impossible to peer outside of this universe with the tools of science.

(Let’s leave aside the “this universe” thing, and the fact that there are likely ways that we can get direct evidence of a multiverse. It’s not relevant to the crux of the argument).

And here’s where you and I disagree. I don’t think it’s ever rational to believe in things on faith (which I’d frame as willful delusion).

If God exists outside the universe (the totality of observable existence) then he functionally does not exist to us, and lacking belief is the only rationally justified position.

I think this is the end of the debate. We can agree to disagree, but the conclusion that your belief system is irrational seems inescapable to me. Have a great day and good weekend!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Haven in post #36]

And here’s where you and I disagree. I don’t think it’s ever rational to believe in things on faith

That is my point, you do and you are. Everyone has to believe by faith in what exists outside of this universe. We are here, and the universe was not. Therefore, you have to believe something that is not seen made this universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to POI in post #35]

Whatever that solution is, the physics of the problem describes the solution as a non-material entity that fine-tuned this universe for life.
Why?

Because matter cannot exist outside of this universe, the laws of physics cannot exist outside of this universe, and this universe is fine-tuned for life.

[Difflugia]

I do not believe either option helps your argument.

My argument is that your attempt at deflection was factually wrong. This one's more an appeal to emotion, though.

However, Many Worlds theory does make you and everyone else a god. That is a fun thought. I'm sorry are you with a big g or a little g. I just made another universe. I had a thought and made a decision. Oh, I am really making universes today. Now look I turned left instead of right, made another universe.

What's funny is that no matter how silly you try to make scholarship sound, it's still less silly than orthodox theology.

Or you could believe in eternal inflation. Where we are nothing more than the thoughts inside a Bosman's brain. The empty de Sitter space in this theory is predicted in the Bible. Genesis does say that the universe was empty at one time, except for the earth. However, eternal inflation has an energy problem. Where did the energy for this inflation come from if it is eternal?

Most physicists would call the multiverse theory a philosophical concept and not a scientific theory because it is not testable.

And yet another word salad that I can only assume is intended to bluff your opponents into feeling intimidated. Maybe that works in church. I don't know. It seems not to work here, though, and it's too bad that Bosman's Brain didn't help you remember being called out for this so many, many times before.

Look, misunderstanding biology, chemistry, geology, physics, cosmology, literature or theology isn't a sin. The sin lies in insulting and trying to gaslight the very people that could help correct those misunderstandings in order to score a few rhetorical points.

[POI]

Because matter cannot exist outside of this universe

It's ironic that you appeal to science while also accusing atheists/others of practicing 'scientism'. Pretty convenient. Your cherry picking is noted. 'Science' also states nothing exists outside the 'universe.' The most common scientific and philosophical definition of the universe is "everything that exists, has ever existed, or ever will exist".

this universe is fine-tuned for life.

Says the water in the pothole, or the weed growing inside of the crack of a concrete driveway.

I'd instead argue that the vast majority of the universe is quite adversarial to life. Since you believe humans are the epicenter of life, then why is most of the universe not fine-tuned for humans, let alone any organic life at all? Or how about the earth itself... ~85% of earth is inhabitable to humans.