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

[Haven]

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.

No, I don’t.

1. I don’t have any beliefs about anything outside the universe (observable physical existence). At best I’d have speculations, but a belief is assent to a proposition.

2. I don’t think this universe (observable physical existence) had a beginning. The concept of “beginning” is temporal and would only apply within spacetime, which is why it’s incoherent to say anything could exist “before” the Big Bang. There is also theoretical support and limited evidence for the existence of a multiverse and a quantum vacuum, and neither one would require a “beginning.” So your assertion assumes a category error on my part and sets up a strawman.

Edited to refine and limit my own claims.

[Haven]

[Replying to William in post #32]

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.)

Wouldn’t mere consciousness and intelligence (but no intervention or discernible personal characteristics) be the very definition of a deist god?

[Haven]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #31]

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

Show me where Feynman said energy isn’t physical. I can promise you that you’re either misunderstanding that or have him confused with someone else.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #32]

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.)

Wouldn’t mere consciousness and intelligence (but no intervention or discernible personal characteristics) be the very definition of a deist god?

Certainly, if we add "(but no intervention or discernible personal characteristics)"

[Haven]

Certainly, if we add "(but no intervention or discernible personal characteristics)"

I feel like you’re holding a bit back here. What is your god concept? Your previous post suggested a deistic god, at least as I read it.

[William]

Certainly, if we add "(but no intervention or discernible personal characteristics)"

Your previous post suggested a deistic god, at least as I read it.

Can you point out exactly what my post said which has you thinking this?

[bluegreenearth]

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?

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

[Haven]

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?

Sorry I missed this!

My claim is that the multiverse likely explains our “bubble.” I’m personally a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of QM, although I admit there is limited empirical evidence (but strong theoretical support) at this moment.

Regardless, my position of skepticism/weak atheism won’t change until actual evidence of a god is presented.

[Haven]

Can you point out exactly what my post said which has you thinking this?

You wrote:

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...

To me, the most plain reading of that statement is a statement of support for a deistic god.

[The Tanager]

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

Sorry I missed this!

My claim is that the multiverse likely explains our “bubble.” I’m personally a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of QM, although I admit there is limited empirical evidence (but strong theoretical support) at this moment.

Regardless, my position of skepticism/weak atheism won’t change until actual evidence of a god is presented.

No worries; thanks for coming back to it. I've got two lines of thought:

First, when you say your position won't change until evidence of a god is presented, do you mean something like: that even if there were no good atheistic explanation for the existence of the universe, this fact wouldn't be positive support for theism or do you mean something else?

Second, and feel free to not answer my follow up question to your claim about the existence of our bubble, but I'd be interested in your explanation of the multiverse itself. In post 41 you seem to say that the multiverse and quantum vacuums are outside of spacetime and, therefore, don't require a beginning. Could you either correct my misunderstanding of what you said or expand on that? I've always thought of physical things as necessarily spatial and temporal and the makeup of the multiverse, including quantum vacuums as physical things.