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 #13]

This is a belief.
Yes, but it’s a belief based on the best available evidence.

Once you admit that it is a belief, the rest of your argument is moot. There is no evidence outside of our universe.

There is only one "uni" one verse. And everything in this universe obeys the same laws. To think that anything else exists outside of this one universe is a belief that is not based in science.

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.

It is not possible to know. Because the fundamental constants have to be different to make string theory a viable theory. (You really do not know the argument that you are trying to defend. You did not read the book I recommended, did you? If you do not like reading, then why don't you watch a documentary by Brian Greene called "Fabric of the Cosmos: Multiverse"? Then you might be able to defend your theory or at least know a little more about your theory. However, the book is a good read, or I thought it was when I was in high school.

However, in the end, it always comes down to the anthropic principle for you, materialist. "If life were impossible, there would be no one to observe the universe, so any observed universe must be capable of supporting life." String theory has somewhere around 10E500 solutions. That means that there has to be more that 10E500 different universes with different constants of nature.

You materialists have way more faith than I have.

However as soon as the fundamental constant change all hope

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to POI in post #12]

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.

No, No, No, that stench you smell is the anthropic principle, which you seem to be expousing. But you are correct in saying that the anthropic principle is a fallacious argument, not worth addressing.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #12]

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.

No, No, No.

Yes, yes, yes. You have presented two fallacious arguments. By identifying these fallacies now, we save countless amounts of time and energy. For example, in the beginning of post #7, you stated --> "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." --- Take your pick between the 1) argument from ignorance and/or the 2) god of the gaps.

1) A logical fallacy where a claim is asserted as true because it hasn't been proven false, or false because it hasn't been proven true. This reasoning is flawed because the absence of evidence for one claim does not automatically validate another, effectively shifting the burden of proof and making an unfounded conclusion based on a lack of knowledge.

2) A logical fallacy where God is invoked to explain phenomena that science cannot yet explain. The argument posits that unexplained aspects of the natural world are evidence for divine action. However, this is considered a fallacy because as scientific understanding advances, the "gaps" shrink, potentially making the concept of God appear to diminish over time.

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

For the record, I'm an agnostic atheist, as opposed to a gnostic atheist. Which means I admit I have no clue if a god or god(s) exist? However, I'm gnostic in the position that if some 'agency' or ' agencies' do exist, and created things, the Bible is NOT the answer. Hence, these types of arguments really get us nowhere for me, even if your argument was not filled with faulty reasoning. Your argument, thus far, is basically "therefore god". Clownboat was spot-on to mention 'farting faires'. If you review your statements, thus far, you will see these statements are in direct violation of two presented fallacious arguments.

[POI]

You materialists have way more faith than I have.

It takes absolutely no faith to conclude that materialism exists. Heck, you too have to concede that materialism exists all around you, as everything we know is drenched in materialism. Where faith is required, is to also invoke anything beyond materialism alone, while also not first proving that anything beyond materialism exists to begin with at all... Tsk tsk...

Historically, you believers have moved the goalposts more than anyone can count, as it relates to the (god of the gaps) argument. The argument you have placed forth, in this thread, may be one of the last bastions of hope for you. Fingers crossed that it works out this time.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #18]
Assuming theism is false, are you saying that we have no evidence that points in any way whatsoever regarding why the universe exists?

Correct, I am not aware of any 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?

Which evidence do you mean? 'Why' evidence or 'how' evidence. Again, there are no theories as to 'why' the universe exists that I'm aware of.

Or that all atheistic theories equally explain the evidence that does exist?

Provide the evidenced you are referring to if you would like, but not all theories will explain the evidence equally I would assume.

Or that you are unaware of the evidences atheistic scientists and philosophers are looking at?

I'm aware of some, but I'm not aware of which ones you are referring to. Perhaps instead of referring to evidences, you can be more specific.
I'm aware of the Big bang theory.
" Cosmic Inflation.
" Multiverse theory.
" Big Bounce.
" Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.
" Natural Universe.
" Brute fact.
" Leibniz's Principle.
" The Physics Project.

However, to get back to 'why' the universe exists (your first question)... We don't know.

Copy/paste: "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."

[Haven]

[Replying to Haven in post #13]
Once you admit that it is a belief, the rest of your argument is moot.

“Belief” doesn’t mean “faith-based view.” It means “assent to a proposition” in this context. This is pretty basic epistemology.

There is no evidence outside of our universe.

There is only one "uni" one verse. And everything in this universe obeys the same laws.

This is dubious at best, and is probably false in light of the latest evidence from quantum mechanics (https://cerncourier.com/the-minimalism-of-many-worlds/).

And that statement (“there is only one universe”) can only be unfalsifiable by your own standard, because, as you said, “there can be no evidence outside the universe.” The same thing applies to all god claims (at least, for all gods stated to exist outside of physical reality). They can only be unfalsifiable (and therefore meaningless), which means that (weak) atheism is the most rational conclusion on the god(s) debate.

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.

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.

It is not possible to know. Because the fundamental constants have to be different to make string theory a viable theory.

Who mentioned string theory? Not me.

I think it’s a fun concept but it’s largely unfalsifiable as it stands now, and therefore meaningless. When there is a way to test it empirically (such as if we build a more powerful particle collider), I’ll be more interested.

You really do not know the argument that you are trying to defend. You did not read the book I recommended, did you? If you do not like reading, then why don't you watch a documentary by Brian Greene called "Fabric of the Cosmos: Multiverse"? Then you might be able to defend your theory or at least know a little more about your theory. However, the book is a good read, or I thought it was when I was in high school.

I haven’t read the book because work has had me extremely busy. Real life exists for us evil atheists (tm), too . I’ll get around to it in the coming weeks.

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. Not that having (or not having) credentials would make a difference to your argument, but I’m just curious.

However, in the end, it always comes down to the anthropic principle for you, materialist.

You use “materialist” like it’s a slur. You could just call me Haven. It’s my name, and like you I’m also a seeker of truth and understanding.

"If life were impossible, there would be no one to observe the universe, so any observed universe must be capable of supporting life." String theory has somewhere around 10E500 solutions. That means that there has to be more that 10E500 different universes with different constants of nature.

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

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to POI in post #23]

For the record, I'm an agnostic atheist, as opposed to a gnostic atheist. Which means I admit I have no clue if a god or god(s) exist?

If you do not know, then why are you even commenting? I have been seeing this claim of agnosticism more and more with the utter failure of metaphysical naturalism.

We know we are here, and at some point in the past, the universe was not here. Therefore, the universe needs a cause. Matter only exists with the fundamental constants that exist in this universe. Therefore, matter did not exist before this universe.

What non-material idea do you believe made this universe? Oh yeah, you don't know. And science just does not know YET. This would make you a believer in scientism. There is no evidence that science can even come up with a solution. Whatever that solution is, the physics of the problem describes the solution as a non-material entity that fine-tuned this universe for life.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Haven in post #26]

Who mentioned string theory? Not me.

You did when you mentioned the multiverse theory.

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

If you are not a proponent of string theory, then you cannot be a proponent of the multiverse theory. The fact that you do not understand how string theory and multiverse theory are linked together really makes continuing this discussion difficult, if not impossible.

[Difflugia]

If you are not a proponent of string theory, then you cannot be a proponent of the multiverse theory.

You've rather got this backwards. If some version of string theory is correct, then multiverses naturally follow from the math. Not all multiverse concepts require string theory, though. The arrow only goes one direction and it's not the one you want it to point.

The fact that you do not understand how string theory and multiverse theory are linked together really makes continuing this discussion difficult, if not impossible.

Carry on, Mr. Physics Man.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

You've rather got this backwards. If some version of string theory is correct, then multiverses naturally follow from the math. Not all multiverse concepts require string theory, though. The arrow only goes one direction and it's not the one you want it to point.

I do not believe either option helps your argument. 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.

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.

The concept of multiple universes, or a multiverse, has been discussed throughout history. It has evolved and has been debated in various fields, including cosmology, physics, and philosophy. Some physicists have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis, as it cannot be empirically falsified. In recent years, there have been proponents and skeptics of multiverse theories within the physics community. Although some scientists have analyzed data in search of evidence for other universes, no statistically significant evidence has been found. Critics argue that the multiverse concept lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential for scientific inquiry, and that it raises unresolved metaphysical issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

In other words, this is nothing more than a religious tenet from scientism.