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]

Quantum mechanics does not say that events happen without a cause. It states that a cause does not necessitate a single effect but a range of probable events. The effect is not decided until it is observed.

That’s actually incorrect (source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20210311/ ). It is true that some quantum physicists have tried to hang onto causality because it fits our macro-level observations, but this motivated reasoning doesn’t account for the empirical evidence, to say nothing of theoretical solutions.

And as Difflugia mentioned in his very thorough response to The Tanager, the HUP provides further support for this idea, due to the fact that we can’t know the exact position and momentum of a particle, and therefore we can’t know the exact quantity of particles in any given space. If we can’t know these exact quantities, if they will always be uncertain to us, then claims of causality as a fundamental feature of reality will always be unsupported.

[Haven]

I'm not currently saying atheism can't account for it; I'm exploring if atheism can. 'It' being the totality of physical reality

I think there’s a subtle category error here on your part. The tacit claim that a complete understanding of the origins of / explanation for the totality of physical reality is needed to reject the God hypothesis. This would assume theism is the default position, and I don’t think that’s reasonable (if anything, agnostic atheism would be the default, since it makes the fewest prior assumptions).

I am not saying a complete understanding of the origins of or that an explanation for the totality of physical reality is needed to reject the God hypothesis. This would be one piece of the data that needs explaining in one's worldview, so a lack here could be made up in other explorations of reality unless atheism was logically ruled out based on 100% certain beliefs about time, causality, etc. that it would be incompatible with. And I don’t think that kind of certainty exists outside of things like pure mathematics and definitions.

I should clarify that I’m a weak (agnostic) atheist (not-theist), and hold the position as a null hypothesis*. To put it another way, I’m an atheist because no brand of theism has presented sufficient evidence to justify the rejection of H0 (that is not-creation, not-cause). And even if physics or another field demonstrated a cause to the totality of physical reality, that would not be proof of a god (let alone your god). The leap in the KCA from “there was a cause” to “that cause was God” (following Craig) is based on motivated reasoning from pre-existing belief and does not follow from the premises, whatsoever.

*Your objection to Difflugia that the null hypothesis framing only works when all priors are completely understood on both sides is false. The H0/H1 framework is employed in both the hard sciences (like your chemistry example) and in the soft sciences as well (where there is a lot more fuzziness and ambiguity when it comes to models of events and statistical priors vs physics!). Even fields as nebulous as economics, political science and sociology use null hypothesis framing. So I maintain that the onus is on you to demonstrate exactly why it wouldn’t apply to the cause (or not-cause) of the universe itself.

Furthermore, in every domain that was once thought supernatural (everything from weather to the origin of species to disease fell under this a mere 600 years ago), compelling natural explanations have been found. The God of the Gaps has shrunk tremendously in the light of modern science, and I don’t see why this last “gap” should be taken as any different than the previous ones.

Science tells us how things physically work. We have to go beyond that when asking how there is the physical in the first place. By definition that isn't a scientific gap waiting to be filled. Whether atheism can fill that gap convincingly is what we are exploring here.

This is the typical apologist move when someone presents the lack of empirical evidence for theism and the strong empirical evidence that contradicts religious claims: calling the authority of science into dispute. This is a form of special pleading, since it seeks to object religious claims from scientific scrutiny.

The origin (if any) of physical reality is a physics question, and more physical data will indeed bring us closer to a definitive answer. And yes, researchers are finding ways to operationalize the multiverse hypothesis (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.08220).

Let me clarify my position.

1. I don’t believe the totality of physical reality began to exist. I think there is likely some part of the multiverse that is eternal.

2. I don’t believe our local, observable spacetime began to exist either, because “beginning” is in relation to time and time is an aspect of our local spacetime.

3. I think all physical objects within our local spacetime, minus quantum particles, began to exist

Okay, so what I would love your thoughts on is how the eternal bit of physical reality produced a temporal effect rather than just other eternal effects. I think it is most rational to believe that within impersonal entities, once the conditions to produce effects are present, the effect results. Impersonal causes can't choose to wait to produce the effect. So, it seems to me, an eternal, impersonal cause would have the necessary conditions eternally to produce the temporal effect. But I could be missing something and would love your help finding it.

I don’t think you’re fully understanding the argument here. I’m not postulating an “eternal bit of physical reality” that caused an effect on the rest of reality at a given point in time. Eternity is a temporal concept; I’m saying it’s a category error to apply temporal language to anything outside the observable macro-level universe, since time is an aspect of space and appears to break down at the quantum level.

There is no physical reason to believe that realities outside of or below the scale of our macro-observable (that is, not quantum) bubble of spacetime (that also aren’t part of other, similar “universes”) are bound by causality or time. Therefore your argument about an impersonal cause not waiting falls flat.

[Haven]

Not only is intelligence detected…

I read the description of the video (sorry, my schedule doesn’t leave me much time). Levin, like almost all scientific mystics, is simply ad-hoc assigning intentionality to observed natural phenomena.

The fact that DNA encodes instructions for cellular repair in some species (to use one of his many equally absurd examples) is not “a detection of intelligence” at the universal level, but simply the working out of molecules to repair an embedded system. Assigning intentionality to a DNA and metabolism driven process like cellular repair is as absurd as saying that a hard drive’s self-defragmentation process is evidence that aluminum is conscious and possesses intelligence!

You remind me a lot of Hindu Advaita apologists I’ve debated on consciousness. The mystical, pseudoscientific thought process and “seeing ghosts” where none exist is the same.

[William]

[Replying to Haven in post #133]

You remind me a lot of...

Let me know when you are ready to seriously examine my arguments in full...
https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/ ... ad-of-mind

[Difflugia]

Quantum mechanics does not say that events happen without a cause.

Quantum mechanics doesn't say that there is a cause, either. At the quantum level, things change state for no reason that we've found.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Haven in post #0]

That’s actually incorrect (source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20210311/ ). It is true that some quantum physicists have tried to hang onto causality because it fits our macro-level observations, but this motivated reasoning doesn’t account for the empirical evidence, to say nothing of theoretical solutions.

Yeah, from your article.

“We’re trying to find different routes up the mountain,” he said. He suspects that the surest route to quantum gravity is the one that “has at its heart this idea of indefinite causal structure.”

Even if this research does prove to be correct, it does not get rid of causation. It simply puts causation in superposition, or as your article explains, "Just as in the example of the quantum switch, this 'gravitational quantum switch” creates a superposition of A then B and B then A." This is what indefinite causal structure means.

But as Robert Frost once said, "Here is where the road divides." This superposition of causality is based on one of the major issues between relativity and quantum mechanics: time.

In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that’s inextricably interwoven with directions x, y and z into a four-dimensional “space-time” fabric. The fabric warps under the weight of matter, causing nearby stuff to fall toward it (this is gravity), and slowing the passage of time relative to clocks far away. https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20161201/

Then one may ask oneself how there could be a reversal in causation in quantum mechanics if time is an absolute? Well, that would be because this researcher is throwing caution to the wind.

Most work on quantum gravity elides one of these features. Some researchers, for instance, attempt to characterize the behavior of “gravitons,” quantum units of gravity. But the researchers have the gravitons interact against a fixed background time. “We’re so used to thinking about the world evolving in time,” Hardy noted. He reasons, though, that quantum gravity will surely inherit general relativity’s radical feature and lack fixed time and fixed causality. “So the idea is really to throw caution to the wind,” said the calm, serious physicist, “and really embrace this wild situation where you have no definite causal structure.” (from your article)

Therefore, Hardy's "Theory" is based on his belief, not science.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Haven in post #131]

the HUP provides further support for this idea, due to the fact that we can’t know the exact position and momentum of a particle, and therefore we can’t know the exact quantity of particles in any given space. If we can’t know these exact quantities, if they will always be uncertain to us, then claims of causality as a fundamental feature of reality will always be unsupported.

I agree with you that reality is impossible without God, and thank you again for supporting the OP that this universe is impossible without God to create it.

However, the uncertainty principle does not say that we cannot know the exact position and momentum (velocity) of a particle. It says that we can know either the position or the momentum, not both at the same time. However, if quantum mechanics is correct and time is a continuous flow, then causation would be a fundamental reality. The burden of proof would be on those who are proposing that quantum time behaves like time in relativity.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #135]

Quantum mechanics doesn't say that there is a cause, either. At the quantum level, things change state for no reason that we've found.

Not exactly sure what you are talking about here when you say change of state. The wave function is broken by observations, and superposition does have a cause.

[Haven]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #136]

Thanks for responding so thoroughly! I really appreciate it.

Even if this research does prove to be correct, it does not get rid of causation. It simply puts causation in superposition, or as your article explains, "Just as in the example of the quantum switch, this 'gravitational quantum switch” creates a superposition of A then B and B then A." This is what indefinite causal structure means.

You’re equivocating on the term “causation” here. Recall the original post’s debate question (posed by you, no less): “how can the universe exist without God to create it?” The “causation” implied by the term create is wholly distinct from the potential, indefinite, unresolved causality held in a quantum superposition. ‘Creation’ is linear, macro-scale and, well, obvious from an ancient human perspective, while quantum causality is only probabilistic until resolved.

This superposition of causality is based on one of the major issues between relativity and quantum mechanics: time.

Again, recall the debate question? Skeptics don’t have to provide a complete and exhaustive explanation for the totality of physical reality to fail to reject the null hypothesis (that there is no reason to accept supernatural creation).

And the fact that we don’t fully understand how or if quantum “time” (a misnomer, since this word describes something fundamentally different than it does at the macro scale; you’re equivocating again) relates to relativistic time doesn’t mean magic suddenly becomes more likely. ‘God did it’ is not the default position or an explanation for lacunae in current scientific understanding. To insist otherwise is classic God-of-the-gaps fallacious reasoning.

[Haven]

However, the uncertainty principle does not say that we cannot know the exact position and momentum (velocity) of a particle. It says that we can know either the position or the momentum, not both at the same time.

That’s literally what I said, just rephrased.

And your line about “you agree the universe is impossible without God.” No, I don’t. I don’t think the universe is impossible because it obviously exists; the actual probability of its existence is 1. If you’re asking me the prior probability of its existence, my only honest answer is “I don’t know.” But it must necessarily be greater than zero, and as QM and astrophysics reveals more about the fundamental nature of reality, the prior probability estimates seem to be rising.

I do think your god (the god of evangelical Christianity) cannot exist, however, because it is logically incoherent to an overwhelming level. This logical impossibility wouldn’t apply to all god concepts, of course, but the lack of real evidence for divine action does provide a strong case for positive atheism, although that is not my position.