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

[Difflugia]

The null hypothesis is used in contexts where the causal principle is true

I don't know what leads you to think that. The designation of a null hypothesis is only opposed to the proposed correlation. If there's no correlation, then there's no assumption of a different correlation or causality.

But why is it applicable in our discussion about whether the causal principle itself applies or not?

How could it not be? You're proposing some causal mechanism. Experiments reveal that our ability to predict quantum events is exactly consistent with random chance. If we express that as a p-value, p=1.

For that we can ignore the Kalam or assume it doesn't go through. That is not enough to support atheistic attempts to explain why the universe is here in the first place.

If not everything that has a beginning has a cause, then a causeless universe is sufficient explanation.

Analogically, if "there is something in the room" is equivalent to ‘quantum events are caused’, then your "there is nothing in the room" is either equivalent to (a) quantum events are uncaused

OK. Nothing's in the room.

or the weaker (b) quantum events are not shown to be caused.

Nothing is shown to be in the room.

If you mean (b), then this is not support for saying that an atheistic framework can explain the existence of the universe by positing an ultimate, uncaused first event.

Why? To all tests so far, uncaused things sometimes happen. The question presented for debate is, "How can the universe exist without God to create it?" An uncaused universe is exactly as consistent with our data than one that requires a God, a Prime Mover, a Creator, or a leprechaun. In the absence of any new data, the uncaused universe is still the most parsimonious ("unnecessarily multiply entities" and all that).

Option (b) is not strong enough for that; you’d need evidence of events being actually uncaused.

In practice, how many tests do you perform on a room before you accept that it's empty?

If you mean the stronger (a), then you've got to show that some quantum event is actually uncaused.

Sure. Since I don't need (a), though, I don't have to show anything else.

You seem to be taking this route and offering the HUP as support for that.

No. Using your (a) and (b), my assertion has always been that because the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has thus far been experimentally absolute, your (b) is absolutely true. Quantum events haven't been shown to have a cause.

Are you saying that even competing interpretations of quantum mechanics agree that the uncertainty is fundamental? If so, that's simply not true.

Experimentally, the uncertainty inequalities are always true.

You are offering a Copenhagen(-like) interpretation as though it's been proven true beyond any doubt. Other interpretations disagree. Bohmian mechanics interprets the HUP as an epistemic limitation, where there are actual definite values that are inaccessible to us.

Call me when someone finds a way to distinguish the two.

You need to show why your interpretation of the HUP is true.

I don't know why you think that. You might as well say that I also have to disprove leprechauns.

If one of the interpretations for which we have no experimental evidence turns out to be true, then maybe there's a god. I accept that sentence is true exactly as it's written. I'm also confident that there are no gods and don't need to be.

Now, to the unfalsifiable bit from our other discussion:

I take 'unfalsifiable' to mean that the statement can't be proven false. And I'm using that within the context of best, rational inferences not 100% certainty. If one brings in scientistic or naturalistic philosophical beliefs 'unfalsifiable' will include the need to be empirically falsifiable.

My points there are the following:

(1) Requiring empirical falsifiability for a statement to be true is self-defeating and, therefore, irrational.

Depending on how you mean that, it might be true, but that doesn't actually oppose my argument. My argument is that empirical falsifiability is necessary for a statement to be meaningful.

(2) The Kalam is falsifiable through philosophical means.

I don't know what you mean by "philosophical means."

(3) As to Craig's claim that I think you are referring to, I think he's responding to this kind of argument:

P1. Quantum event A comes into existence from the quantum vacuum
P2. The quantum vacuum is nothing
P3. Therefore, quantum event A comes into existence from nothing
P4. Things that come into existence from nothing are uncaused
P5. Therefore, quantum event A is uncaused

His response is that this argument equivocates on 'nothing' where the 'nothing' in P2 is a different concept than the 'nothing' in P4. This equivocation makes the argument unsound.

I think you're right and that's his argument.

My response has been that if that's true (the "nothings" in P2 and P3 are different "nothings"), then P1 is unknowable in principle and so his syllogism tells us nothing.

First, do you disagree with any of that assessment and, if so, where and why?

Second, if you agree with that assessment, then why would we need a 'nothing' to test Craig's rebuttal to his opponent?

Without a way to test Craig's rebuttal, P1 of the KCA might be true and it might not be. That's the only information that we can possibly know about it. That means that in a state of actual nothingness, we have no information about whether quantum fluctuations happen, with or without causes. Craig's certainly incredulous about uncaused events, but that's not worth very much to me.

That also doesn't tell us that quantum events are caused, by the way, even in this universe. It just means that because the "something" is omnipresent in this universe, all of the quantum events that occur in this universe are in the presence of something. Craig's argument then seems to be that because there's something, there's also probably a cause (the "abductive" part of the argument?), but I still think that's just a shiny wrapper on incredulity.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

The paradox lay in the underlying assumption that a Boltzmann brain is absurd, yet within the current theoretical framework, Boltzmann brains are more likely than universes that have (or start with) low entropy. The attempted solutions to this apparent paradox are to attack either end: either find a reason that low-entropy universes are more likely or a reason that Boltzmann brains are less likely.

I am informed you that it was a paradox. You said, "The Boltzmann brain isn't a 'theory' as such and isn't, as you seem to think, a brain that holds within it an entire imagined universe. It's a thought experiment. It's an informal filter. It's a way of deciding if any particular path of cosmological reasoning is worth pursuing."

It is not a thought experiment, and I am not sure what you mean by an informal filter that makes no sense whatsoever. Modern theories of cosmology predict Boltzmann brains. Cosmologists wish it were a thought experiment. Sean Carroll puts it like this.

Some modern cosmological models predict the appearance of Boltzmann Brains: observers who randomly fluctuate out of a thermal bath rather than naturally evolving from a low-entropy Big Bang. A theory in which most observers are of the Boltzmann Brain type is generally thought to be unacceptable, although opinions differ. I argue that such theories are indeed unacceptable: the real problem is with fluctuations into observers who are locally identical to ordinary observers, and their existence cannot be swept under the rug by a choice of probability distributions over observers. The issue is not that the existence of such observers is ruled out by data, but that the theories that predict them are cognitively unstable: they cannot simultaneously be true and justifiably believed.

Sean does call this a theory. Now he may find this unacceptable, but not because the data rules out the existence of such observers. "Cognitively unstable," a concept he coined because he did not like the mathematical implications of a universe without a creator God. Therefore, according to the mathematics of inflation theory, our existence is a miracle.

My comment was in response to Haven, who made the following statement.

I highlighted the important part of what you quoted. The point of the Boltzmann brain idea is to figure out why you're not one. That's exactly the filter I mentioned before. If your cosmological theory is such that Boltzmann brains are more likely than universes, there's something wrong with it.

Yeah, but the problem is that it is "some yet-to-be-revealed error." This would not be a filter; this would be called making accurate predictions. In which modern cosmological theories can not do. In otherwords the reality that we perceive can only exist because of a Creator God.

[Difflugia]

It is not a thought experiment,

Then what, even in principle, are the steps that one would take to test whether or not one was a Boltzmann brain?

and I am not sure what you mean by an informal filter

I have no doubt.

Modern theories of cosmology predict Boltzmann brains.

Some do, yes. The ones that do are problematic.

Cosmologists wish it were a thought experiment.

Unless they know what a thought experiment is. Then they know that the idea of Boltzmann brains is a thought experiment.

Sean Carroll puts it like this.

Some modern cosmological models predict the appearance of Boltzmann Brains: observers who randomly fluctuate out of a thermal bath rather than naturally evolving from a low-entropy Big Bang. A theory in which most observers are of the Boltzmann Brain type is generally thought to be unacceptable, although opinions differ.

The part that I bolded is Carroll telling you that the Boltzmann brain idea is used as an informal filter.

I argue that such theories are indeed unacceptable: the real problem is with fluctuations into observers who are locally identical to ordinary observers, and their existence cannot be swept under the rug by a choice of probability distributions over observers. The issue is not that the existence of such observers is ruled out by data, but that the theories that predict them are cognitively unstable: they cannot simultaneously be true and justifiably believed.

And I've bolded the part where he's telling you it's a thought experiment.

We're very solidly in the same territories we each occupied when discussing the differences between allegory, fiction, and lying.

Sean does call this a theory.

No he doesn't. He says that some theories would predict more Boltzmann brains than observers produced by the evolution of a full universe.

Now he may find this unacceptable, but not because the data rules out the existence of such observers.

Right. Because it's a thought experiment. He's not making a logical argument backed by data or theory, but the recognition that Boltzmann brains are an absurdism. Sometimes absurd things do end up being true. Einstein thought the idea of gravitational lensing was absurd, but it turned to match reality. Carroll is saying that because Boltzmann brains are absurd, he's trying to figure out what's wrong with theories that predict more disembodied brains than universes.

"Cognitively unstable," a concept he coined because he did not like the mathematical implications of a universe without a creator God.

I'm sure he thinks that creationism is cognitively unstable, too, but that's not what he's talking about in this discussion.

Therefore, according to the mathematics of inflation theory, our existence is a miracle.

Once we get to the inflation part, we're past the point where low entropy is statistically a problem.

My comment was in response to Haven, who made the following statement.

I highlighted the important part of what you quoted. The point of the Boltzmann brain idea is to figure out why you're not one. That's exactly the filter I mentioned before. If your cosmological theory is such that Boltzmann brains are more likely than universes, there's something wrong with it.

I wrote that, not Haven.

Yeah, but the problem is that it is "some yet-to-be-revealed error." This would not be a filter; this would be called making accurate predictions. In which modern cosmological theories can not do. In otherwords the reality that we perceive can only exist because of a Creator God.

What kind of dressing would you like with your salad?

[Haven]

If you mean (b), then this is not support for saying that an atheistic framework can explain the existence of the universe by positing an ultimate, uncaused first event.

Difflugia already said everything I would have in response. Still, I wanted to address this part of your post specifically.

You’re doing a very subtle version of shifting the burden of proof. Recall that atheism is simply the lack of assent to god claims, not the positive assertion that no gods exist. It’s the null hypothesis (and yes, as both Difflugia and I have already explained, it applies to the question of whether a causal mechanism for the universe exists at all [it would be the inverse of “the universe has a cause of its existence”]). This is an empirical question that can be answered with evidence, so it can be evaluated in terms of H0 and H1. H1, of course, is the claim that the universe requires a cause, with H1a being that the cause must be a god.

The onus is on you to show that the universe has a cause, and that cause is divine in nature. If you can’t do that, there’s no reason to reject H0 (which carries no burden of proof by definition).

[Haven]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #152]

My comment was in response to Haven, who made the following statement.

I highlighted the important part of what you quoted. The point of the Boltzmann brain idea is to figure out why you're not one. That's exactly the filter I mentioned before. If your cosmological theory is such that Boltzmann brains are more likely than universes, there's something wrong with it.

Yeah, but the problem is that it is "some yet-to-be-revealed error." This would not be a filter; this would be called making accurate predictions. In which modern cosmological theories can not do. In otherwords the reality that we perceive can only exist because of a Creator God.

I don’t believe I made that statement, unless it was something I posted years ago. I think you probably got something mixed up (it happens…I did the same thing a few posts back!).

With that said, your only objection to the idea of Boltzmann brains seems to be personal incredulity, which is very weak for reasons we’ve already discussed. It’s entirely impossible that they may exist in another region of the universe (the totality of physical reality), although I’ll admit this is an argument from ignorance on my part since we have no empirical evidence.

Boltzmann brains would seem to have a higher prior probability than gods, at least, since they are at least physical and explainable in physical terms (we have ample evidence for the physical and absolutely zero for the supernatural…we don’t even know what the supernatural is should it exist. It’s pure fantasy at this point).

If I were pressed to make an argument for why we don’t observe Boltzmann brains, it would be based on biology. Every thinking entity that we observe (excluding AI, which we know to be designed) requires oxygen, food and water to survive, and those things don’t exist in the vacuum of space. It’s possible (and I’d argue, probable given biology and theoretical support for Boltzmann brains) that any such brains that do form die almost instantaneously, meaning that it would be extremely unlikely for us to locate or converse with one, or to be one ourselves.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #153]

Right. Because it's a thought experiment. He's not making a logical argument backed by data or theory, but the recognition that Boltzmann brains are an absurdism. Sometimes absurd things do end up being true. Einstein thought the idea of gravitational lensing was absurd, but it turned to match reality. Carroll is saying that because Boltzmann brains are absurd, he's trying to figure out what's wrong with theories that predict more disembodied brains than universes.

Thank you, wow! And this is why it is a problem, because there are no theories that start off with low entropy that the mathematics do not produce Boltzmann brains. That is the paradox. If the mathematics do not sustain a theory, then it is considered falsified. Therefore, modern cosmological theories based on inflation and low entropy must be considered falsified until such time as this problem in the mathematics is solved. And yet again, the universe as we know it cannot exist without a creator God.

Try again. Next!!

[William]

[Replying to William in post #147]

"in the beginning God created..." fits in with both simulation and boltzmann brain.

As I pointed out in my first post to this thread, it is one thing to claim "We exist within a created thing", and another thing to claim which "God" created it, let alone how such a thing was achieved ex nihilo...

...the Boltzmann brain paradox is a mathematical construct that assumes an uncreated universe.

Breaking down what you have replied with.
The Boltzmann brain paradox is a thought experiment from physics, not a literal theory, used to test cosmological models. It highlights a statistical problem: in an eternally old, high-entropy universe, random fluctuations make it exponentially more probable for a single, conscious brain with false memories (a "Boltzmann brain") to form than the complex, ordered universe we observe.

This creates a paradox because our existence as normal observers in a structured universe contradicts this statistical prediction. If we were more likely to be Boltzmann brains, we couldn't trust our perceptions or memories, undermining science itself. Consequently, physicists use the paradox to identify flaws in theories (like some eternal inflation models) that would predict Boltzmann brains are more common than ordinary observers.

It does not assume an uncreated universe. While the paradox uses the premise of an eternal universe to create a statistical conflict, this is a tool to test theories. The paradox itself does not affirm or rely on the assumption of a universe with no beginning.

Simulation theory, is an effort to explain the fine-tuning of the universe without the need for God.

Not really. Rather it is more an effort to explain the fine-tuning of the universe without the need for a supernatural creator. (one working outside of any/all created universes.)

All these theories do is show that a universe as we perceive it is only possible if a creator God created it. There is no way to get to a universe as we perceive the universe to be without a Creator God.

Now we are getting somewhere nearer the argument of my first post in this thread.
If we do exist in a created thing, then this would require a creator/creators.

Anything regarded as a "simulation" should be seen as the same as anything regarded as a "creation".

My mentioning

Q: If we existed within the mind of a creator, how would The Boltzmann brain align with that idea


In an infinitely large and old universe, the Boltzmann brain paradox suggests it is statistically more probable for a disembodied, conscious brain to randomly fluctuate into existence than for an entire organized universe to develop. While the paradox is a scientific thought experiment, exploring it alongside the philosophical idea of existing within a creator's mind reveals distinct, contrasting assumptions about the nature of existence.
The core conflict: Randomness vs. intent
The central tension lies in the fundamental cause of consciousness.
The Boltzmann brain hypothesis posits that our consciousness arises from pure, unguided randomness. In an infinite, heat-dead universe, particles would eventually, by chance, configure themselves into a brain with false memories, briefly hallucinating a reality like ours. This is a "reductio ad absurdum" argument that challenges some cosmological theories.
The creator hypothesis, by definition, claims that our consciousness and reality were established through deliberate, intentional design. Randomness is either a limited property of the created universe or is itself guided by the creator's will.
How the two ideas could interact
While the two premises are fundamentally at odds, there are a few philosophical possibilities that could bridge the concepts.
1. The creator as the ultimate Boltzmann brain
This is a paradoxical inversion where the creator is the ultimate spontaneously formed entity. In this interpretation:
The creator is a kind of Boltzmann brain that, through its own random fluctuation, came into a state of consciousness.
The universe we experience is not a deliberate act of creation, but rather a hyper-realistic thought or "dream" of that spontaneously generated cosmic consciousness.
In this scenario, our reality is still a product of random chaos, but at one remove. We exist within the hallucination of an infinitely more complex Boltzmann brain.
2. A designer resolves the paradox
A creator is often used as a direct philosophical counterargument to the Boltzmann brain paradox.
The very existence of an orderly, long-lived universe filled with many observers (like humans), rather than fleeting, solitary brains, is considered evidence against the pure random probability that produces Boltzmann brains.
The creator hypothesis resolves this statistical problem by providing a reason for the non-random, low-entropy state of our universe. The creator's intention overrules the statistical likelihood of chaos.
In this view, the Boltzmann brain concept simply becomes a thought experiment that highlights the necessity of a non-random explanation for our existence.
3. We are sub-brains within the creator's simulation
This interpretation aligns more with a simulation hypothesis and blurs the lines between a physical reality and a created mind.
The creator is not a brain that randomly fluctuated into being, but a designer who deliberately constructed our reality.
We could be akin to "virtual Boltzmann brains" within the creator's mind. The creator designed a reality where simulated beings experience consciousness and the illusion of a full, consistent history.
In this case, our existence is still an artificial one, much like a Boltzmann brain, but it was manufactured intentionally rather than appearing by cosmic accident. Our consciousness is a feature, not a fluke.
4. Consciousness is not defined by external context
Some resolutions to the Boltzmann brain paradox propose that consciousness cannot be defined by a brain's internal state alone. They suggest that consciousness is tied to the brain's interaction with a consistent, external environment.
In this view, a spontaneously formed brain in a void, with no external reality to interact with, would not be truly conscious.
This does not align with the creator hypothesis by suggesting that true consciousness can only exist within the consistent, purposeful "environment" provided by a creative intelligence.

However, consciousness re a "void" would still be conscious and any environment it creates for itself would be a product of conscious intent. In this case "the void" itself would be an aspect of said consciousness (not something the creator consciousness is within but something which is within the creator consciousness) and thus "creative potential" unrealized until purposeful creativity is engaged.

The "stuff" of the void is shaped into things which can appear to be external or "other"...aka "Simulated"..

[William]

[Replying to Haven in post #154]

Recall that atheism is simply the lack of assent to god claims, not the positive assertion that no gods exist.

Is this to say then, that those who positively assert that no gods exist, are NOT atheists? If they are not atheists, what are they?

[Haven]

[Replying to Haven in post #154]

Recall that atheism is simply the lack of assent to god claims, not the positive assertion that no gods exist.

Is this to say then, that those who positively assert that no gods exist, are NOT atheists? If they are not atheists, what are they?

Those who positively assert that no gods exist* would be strong atheists or positive atheists. That’s a distinct, somewhat faith-based philosophical position, although I think it’s pretty reasonable given the overwhelming evidence against religious claims.

*In a lifetime of religious practice (since abandoned), discussion and debate, I’ve only met one person who held this position. The vast majority of philosophically informed atheists are weak atheists.

[Difflugia]

Thank you, wow! And this is why it is a problem, because there are no theories that start off with low entropy that the mathematics do not produce Boltzmann brains.

That's not true, either. A number of cosmologists have proposed mechanisms by which low-entropy initial states far outnumber high-entropy ones. This isn't the first time I've had a similar conversation here.

That is the paradox. If the mathematics do not sustain a theory, then it is considered falsified.

Nothing's been falsified here. The math works, but the result isn't very satisfying.

Therefore, modern cosmological theories based on inflation

The low-entropy state that's important for this discussion is the state of the universe at the Big Bang. By the time inflation began some 10^-36 seconds later, the point was moot.

and low entropy must be considered falsified

We're nearly certain that the initial state of the universe was low entropy. That's somewhat different than falsified.

until such time as this problem in the mathematics is solved.

It's not a problem "in the mathematics."

And yet again, the universe as we know it cannot exist without a creator God.

Right. If history has told us anything, it's that every gap has its god.

Try again. Next!!

Stand clear of the closing doors, please!