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

[Clownboat]

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

Since we do not know how the universe came about, it is faulty questioning to ask how it can be shown to come about without one of our god concepts to create it.

To your first question:
Have you ever considered fairy farts coalescing in outer space? How can all the gas in the universe come into existence without fairy farts?

The chemical energy in the gases like methane and hydrogen within a fart is converted into various other forms, such as the heat released and the kinetic energy of the expelled gas, with a net decrease in internal energy for the farter that is offset by the energy of the fart itself. So there is no problem for conservation of energy.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #2]

Since we do not know how the universe came about, it is faulty questioning to ask how it can be shown to come about without one of our god concepts to create it.

You cannot describe how the universe came about without God. Therefore, God must have created the universe. Energy itself does not possess physical properties, yet it is the foundation of everything in the universe. The essence of pure energy cannot be described. The only thing we can do with energy is measure its effect. Like how John 3:8 descirbes the Holy Spirit (God).

[The Tanager]

Since we do not know how the universe came about, it is faulty questioning to ask how it can be shown to come about without one of our god concepts to create it.

I think I'm missing something in your logic here. Shouldn't one's worldview have credible responses to a fundamental question like how reality exists?

[POI]

You cannot describe how the universe came about without God.

Oh, I know this one. It's the god of the gaps argument, yet again.

[Haven]

[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?

This question is very slanted and biased, but I’ll ignore that and steelman your inquiry.

First of all, let me state that science hasn’t come to a complete understanding of how the universe (defined as our local region of spacetime, the “observable universe” in technical terms) came to be. This isn’t a challenge for the skeptical position, because it is based on the idea that belief should be withheld until sufficient evidence is presented. The lack of a full and complete explanation of the origin of the universe isn’t cause for inserting a god as an explanation (this would be “god of the gaps,” a form of the appeal to ignorance fallacy).

However, the data seem to suggest that we reside within a multiverse (a vast panoply of spacetime “bubbles,” each with their own physical laws [3]). Fluctuations and mass accretions (such as from collapsing supermassive stars, creating supermassive black holes [1, 2, 4] within this supra-system produce new spacetime “bubbles,” regions of spacetime like our observable universe). This multiverse likely contains areas of quantum vacuum, and this vacuum experiences fluctuations, most of which result in nothing, but some of which result in spacetime-like expansions and deep structure within such [5, 6].

Taken together, these things offer a complete explanation for the universe (that is, the totality of physical existence) without appeal to a supernatural, personal being. Moreover, if such a supernatural being is to be accepted as a hypothesis, one must show that it is both logically coherent and supported by evidence, and to my knowledge this has not been done.

Sources:

1. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/1 ... %29103.pdf

2. https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/5/257

3. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.08220

4. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016J ... G/abstract

5. https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/pte/article-a ... m=fulltext

6. https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/6/295

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to POI in post #5]

Oh, I know this one. It's the god of the gaps argument, yet again.

What are the laws of physics outside of this universe? Then anything that exists beyond this universe cannot possibly be observed. Therefore, beyond the scope of science. If you want to believe that matter exists outside of this universe, you are welcome to believe that. However, it would be ignorant to believe that because matter can only exist in this universe with the fundamental constants of nature, it has.

[Clownboat]

You cannot describe how the universe came about without God.

The part of my post that you quote mined out of your reply was:
Have you ever considered fairy farts coalescing in outer space? How can all the gas in the universe come into existence without fairy farts?

The chemical energy in the gases like methane and hydrogen within a fart is converted into various other forms, such as the heat released and the kinetic energy of the expelled gas, with a net decrease in internal energy for the farter that is offset by the energy of the fart itself. So there is no problem for conservation of energy.

Therefore, God must have created the universe.

Only if you ignored the fairies.

Energy itself does not possess physical properties, yet it is the foundation of everything in the universe. The essence of pure energy cannot be described. The only thing we can do with energy is measure its effect. Like how John 3:8 descirbes the Holy Spirit (God).

I submit that you now adding in a 'Spirit' doesn't help your case, but the actual answer to how did the universe come about is, 'we don't know'. Fairies, the gods and spirits are all human inventions the best I can tell, and just because we can imagine something doesn't make it real as I'm sure you agree.

[Haven]

[Replying to POI in post #5]

Oh, I know this one. It's the god of the gaps argument, yet again.

What are the laws of physics outside of this universe? Then anything that exists beyond this universe cannot possibly be observed. Therefore, beyond the scope of science. If you want to believe that matter exists outside of this universe, you are welcome to believe that. However, it would be ignorant to believe that because matter can only exist in this universe with the fundamental constants of nature, it has.

Direct observation isn’t the only path to scientific discovery. In physics, mathematics, simulations and examinations of structures within the universe can provide insights into origins without direct observation.

Besides, this standard can easily be applied to your own claims. We haven’t directly observed a god, so how can a god be an explanation for the universe (by your own standards)?

Positing a god to explain what we don’t yet fully understand has been done before. In the premodern era, it was used to explain everything from sunrises to disease occurrence to the motions of planets. We now fully understand these things and know their causes are natural.

So your use of a god to explain the current unknown (of which we may discover evidence of natural causation tomorrow) is fundamentally the same thing that premodern theologians did. Saying that God explains the things we lack complete explanations for today. This is the god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Haven in post #6]

First of all, let me state that science hasn’t come to a complete understanding of how the universe (defined as our local region of spacetime, the “observable universe” in technical terms) came to be. This isn’t a challenge for the skeptical position, because it is based on the idea that belief should be withheld until sufficient evidence is presented. The lack of a full and complete explanation of the origin of the universe isn’t cause for inserting a god as an explanation (this would be “god of the gaps,” a form of the appeal to ignorance fallacy).

Incorrect definition of the universe. It is the region of spacetime that is observable or unobservable that shares the same fundamental constants of nature. These fundamental constants of nature had a beginning. It is an appeal to ignorance to assume that something material can exist in a state with no fundamental constants of nature. How is energy transferred when there are no fundamental constants of nature?

However, the data seem to suggest that we reside within a multiverse (a vast panoply of spacetime “bubbles,” each with their own physical laws [3]). Fluctuations and mass accretions (such as from collapsing supermassive stars, creating supermassive black holes [1, 2, 4] within this supra-system produce new spacetime “bubbles,” regions of spacetime like our observable universe). This multiverse likely contains areas of quantum vacuum, and this vacuum experiences fluctuations, most of which result in nothing, but some of which result in spacetime-like expansions and deep structure within such [5, 6].

This is a belief. What are the fundamental constants of nature outside of this universe? Evidence from this universe would say that there are no fundamental constants that exist outside of this universe.