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]

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.

Yes, logic is being missed it seems.

Shouldn't one's worldview have credible responses to a fundamental question like how reality exists?

When the answer to a question is "I don't know", it would not be logical to imagine up some answer just so some arbitrary (yours, a Muslims, mine or your neighbors) worldview can have a response. "I don't know" are literally some of the most important words (if said in that order of course) that humans can utter and they leave open the possibility for learning. Pretending to know can prevent future learning and would be illogical and should be avoided in life.

Therefore, pretending that Allah created the universe should be avoided and questions like how can the universe be shown to come into existence without Allah is to use bad thinking. On this I'm sure you agree.

[POI]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #7]

Everything in this response smells heavily of the 1) argument from ignorance, as well as more 2) god of the gaps. Addressing fallacious arguments gets one nowhere fast.

[Haven]

[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?

That definition is unnecessarily limited in light of data from QM and modern cosmology (which I presented earlier) and seeks to be motivated by a desire to reject secular explanations. With that said, even on this limited definition, there is no reason to assume a god must be responsible. The vast majority of even our observable universe is lethal to us, and the anthropic principle states that we can only ever find ourselves in a region of spacetime that supports our existence (otherwise we wouldn’t exist!). This alone, in a universe as vast as ours, would be sufficient to explain why we can exist.

Furthermore, multiverse theory doesn’t state that there are no universal constants. It states the constants we observe locally may not hold for other regions of spacetime, and this has a very technical definition (it’s not just “things are different really far away”).

Finally, how does inserting a god explain any of this? And what would be that god’s origin?

This is a belief.

Yes, but it’s a belief based on the best available evidence. Even then, I’m not claiming certainty. I proportion my belief to the evidence, and my confidence in this view is low relative to other things (such as the physical origin of consciousness, or the claim that 2+2 = 4).

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.

1. I don’t know. More research is needed to establish this.

2. How are you defining “outside of this universe? (I can only guess that you mean outside of our local region of spacetime). And if this were true (“no fundamental constants…exist outside of this [region of spacetime]”), that would be inimical to your view, since it depends on the fine-tuning argument.

[Clownboat]

What are the laws of physics outside of this universe?

We don't know. Did you inquire with the fairies?

The way I understand it, only their farts interact with and create universes. The fairies themselves are outside of this universe which is how we can know that they are responsible. I can only assume that they understand the laws of physics outside of this universe, but I don't actually claim to know that for sure. The rest I do know though.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #11]

What do you mean by “I don’t know” being the answer? We don’t know anything at all, including any constraints whatsoever? Or we aren’t certain, but have some idea that a is more likely than b, etc? Or something else?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #7]

Everything in this response smells heavily of the 1) argument from ignorance, as well as more 2) god of the gaps. Addressing fallacious arguments gets no one nowhere fast.

Not true! It got us to the understanding that fairies have done it!
Oh my.... nevermind... I see it now.

[Haven]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #11]

What do you mean by “I don’t know” being the answer? We don’t know anything at all, including any constraints whatsoever? Or we aren’t certain, but have some idea that a is more likely than b, etc? Or something else?

It means we don’t yet have a complete understanding of multiversal physics or “unified” physics (which would unite Einsteinian classical mechanics and quantum physics) in all possible settings.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #11]

What do you mean by “I don’t know” being the answer?

Just leaving this one here for all to see.

We don’t know anything at all, including any constraints whatsoever?

To answer your question... 'I don't know' of any constraints.

Or we aren’t certain, but have some idea that a is more likely than b, etc? Or something else?

Not more likely, no. I submit that your preferred god concept is just as likely to have created the universe when compared to competing god concept and fairies. If you disagree, I would love to hear a counter argument.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Haven in post #6]

Thanks for sharing that explanation; it's very concise, but packed with a lot. I have one clarifying question, concerning the definition(s) of 'universe'. Early on in your post you defined the 'universe' as "our local region of spacetime, the 'observable universe' in technical terms)" but, at the end, seemed to define it as "the totality of physical existence". I'm trying to place that which makes up the multiverse in these definitions. You seem to be saying it is outside of our local region of spacetime (having given birth to our local region of spacetime) and, therefore, not part of the 'universe', but also said those things have physical laws that impinge upon them and, therefore, part of the "totality of physical existence" which you call the 'universe'

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #18]

Sorry, I could have explained myself better. Let me try to get at this clarification differently. Assuming theism is false, are you saying that we have no evidence that points in any way whatsoever regarding why the universe exists? Or that multiple atheistic theories roughly equally explain the evidence that does exist? Or that all atheistic theories equally explain the evidence that does exist? Or that you are unaware of the evidences atheistic scientists and philosophers are looking at?