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 William in post #169]

Correctly, most THINK they are physically real beings and yes - their subjective experience is unique to themselves BUT the billions of unique experiences are still involved with a collective shared reality.
The "beings" are simply a human experience and this creates human personalities which can be harvested and inserted into other simulations (think "Heaven" et all) and while we appear to agree that we exist within a created thing, we disagree as to what that actually means.

Definitely too much matrix. What created you?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #169]

Correctly, most THINK they are physically real beings and yes - their subjective experience is unique to themselves BUT the billions of unique experiences are still involved with a collective shared reality.
The "beings" are simply a human experience and this creates human personalities which can be harvested and inserted into other simulations (think "Heaven" et all) and while we appear to agree that we exist within a created thing, we disagree as to what that actually means.

What created you?

If you are referring to what I wrote (that you didn't quote)...

"It can even be argued that WE created this simulation for that very purpose - to allow us to forget what we were prior to entering it for the experience and that in doing so we could effective grow personalities which were genuine rather than contrived, and that the whole operation being temporary - would allow us to return to the fullness of the knowledge of our prior selves WITH the addition of the grown human personality.

This would mean that, although we exist within a created thing, the creators of that thing, are the "God" that created that thing."

My answer is that WE are not created. This means that we have always existed and will always exist. WE are not simulations. Rather, we create simulations (and those simulations are not what we are - they are what we chose to experience being (temporarily).

Now, if I were to think of myself as the human personality, then my answer would be "I created me" as in "My prior self" which created the simulation which would temporarily erase any prior memory of my having existed, which I then consciously (and willfully) entered into effectively created my human personality self.

Then, if while I was within said simulation, my human personality self worked out that I was not JUST said human personality self, but in fact am the very being which helped create the simulation, then my sense of "self" shifts from being just the human personality into understanding that I am (as said human personality) an aspect of that being who helped create the simulation which grew the human personality.

Or, if I lived my human personality life completely or wilfully oblivious to that knowledge, (even though clearly the simulation does not prevent the human personality from coming into that knowledge) then when my experience as a human personality eventually comes to an end - through what we call "death", I will only experience the shift as a human personality who does not know itself as anything other than said human personality, and thus only be useful in whatever capacity human personalities oblivious to their deeper connection, can be utilized.

Deepseek: (summarizing the above)

Based on the text provided, here is a summary of the key ideas:

The core argument is that what we perceive as our individual human selves are not the ultimate reality, but temporary personalities grown within a shared simulation.

The key points are:

Humanity as a Temporary Experience: Our unique human personalities are not our fundamental selves. They are experiences created and "harvested" within a simulation (compared to concepts like "Heaven").

The Self as the Creator: The ultimate "we" or "I" is not created; it is an eternal being that has always existed. This true self is not the simulation but the creator of the simulation.

Purpose of the Simulation: The simulation is a temporary construct designed to allow our true selves to forget their prior knowledge and genuinely grow a human personality from scratch.

Two Outcomes: Within the simulation, a person can either:

Realize their true nature: Understand that their human self is a temporary aspect of the greater being that created the simulation.

Remain oblivious: Live their entire human life identified solely with the human personality, which determines how they are "utilized" after death.

In short, we are not the simulated characters; we are the players who created the game and temporarily chose to forget we were playing to have a genuine experience.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

No. What you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with what this is saying.

I really do not care what Yasunori said in his paper. The fact that he had to write a paper on it shows how big of problem the the Boltzmann Brain paradox is.

I was using his paper simply because I liked the way he described the Boltzmann Brain paradox.

Let us first formulate the problem precisely in the current framework. Suppose that some “observation” is made. This requires us to take prior condition A to be classes of information processing occurring in spacetime in some physical form (which includes firings of neural signals in a human brain). We then take condition B to be that these “observations” find some ordered pattern (e.g. the sight “seen” by this process is an ordered world obeying regular rules). The Boltzmann brain problem arises if we obtain P(B|A) ≪ 1. Since the world we (or I/you) see is ordered, such a result would contradict observations.

Yasunori, Nomura. "Physical Theories, Eternal Inflation, and the Quantum Universe." Journal of High Energy Physics 2011, no. 11 (11, 2011): 39.

What Yasunori wrote is that we'll take as given that we already have an observer. If the further probability that the observer sees an ordered universe like ours is much less than 100%, then Boltzmann brains are a problem.

In other words, a satisfying cosmology should predict that the vast majority of universes evolve from low entropy to high entropy. The one that relies on random chance to evolve a low-entropy state out of a high-entropy one doesn't predict that, so the solution is unsatisfying. In such a cosmology, Boltzmann brains will statistically be much, much more likely than universes like the one we know and love.

The role of a paradox in science is not some filter for theories, but it shows the limitations of current theories and an indication of whether theories actually describe reality. All Yasunori's paper does is point to the fact that something must exist outside of what is possible to observe. Pretty all cosmologies point to the fact that something must exist outside of what is observable. You and William may want to call that which exists outside of this universe an eternal expanding universe. However, an eternally expanding universe is an oxymoron. It is not possible for anything to be expanding eternally. Where is the eternal energy coming from to expand eternally?

William's conscious universe is more logical than your non-conscious universe belief. A conscious universe would have a reason for the fundamental constants of nature and how life formed (Fermi's Paradox), the Faint Young Sun paradox, the meter barrier, and the bouncing barrier. However, neither of you could account for Olbers' paradox. Your non-conscious universe belief is simply not a logically coherent position to hold. The evidence is simply not there for your belief position.

[Difflugia]

I really do not care what Yasunori said in his paper.

Apologists aren't supposed to admit that. You said the quiet part out loud.

The role of a paradox in science is not some filter for theories, but it shows the limitations of current theories and an indication of whether theories actually describe reality.

The role of a mesh screen is not some filter, but to separate little things from big things.

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #173]

You and William may want to call that which exists outside of this universe an eternal expanding universe. However, an eternally expanding universe is an oxymoron. It is not possible for anything to be expanding eternally.

There is no reason why the idea of universes expanding from universes or that such has always been going on, is an "oxymoron". Why would that be?

Where is the eternal energy coming from to expand eternally?

It is not "coming from" anywhere other than itself. Given you appear to be arguing for a supernatural source re this energy, the argument for supernaturalism is dead in the water. If our universe is an expansion or branch off a prior universe, that does not signify at all that the prior universe MUST be "supernatural"...

Consciousness Without Supernaturalism
The Minder-Naturalist Bridge

Also to add - the argument that a creator is immaterial amounts to the same as arguing that a creator isn't a thing...it is a "non thing" (nothing) and thus the argument that a creator created things from non things...as in "ex nihilo" = out of nothing is simply to argue that things were created from nothing which is to say, from the nothing that is the so-claimed "immaterial creator".

Such long-winded roundaboutness is easily shown to be silly for its unnecessary gymnastics when it is far easier to understand that things created are created from a thing which exists and can be thought of as to have always existed.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #174]

The role of a mesh screen is not some filter, but to separate little things from big things.

A paradox means there is nothing that gets through the mesh screen.

Apologists aren't supposed to admit that. You said the quiet part out loud.

An eternally expanding universe is not possible because of entropy,opy, and it would also mean that the universe would have to be infinitely small at one point, so why should I care about Yasunori's theory?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #175]

There is no reason why the idea of universes expanding from universes or that such has always been going on, is an "oxymoron". Why would that be?

An eternally expanding universe cannot exist because of entropy, and an eternally expanding universe implies that it had to come from an eternally small universe, which is impossible.

My answer is that WE are not created. This means that we have always existed and will always exist. WE are not simulations. Rather, we create simulations (and those simulations are not what we are - they are what we chose to experience being (temporarily).

If you are saying that we are some sort of energy or material existing under the laws of nature that we exist in, then entropy would suggest that it is impossible to exist eternally.

Also to add - the argument that a creator is immaterial amounts to the same as arguing that a creator isn't a thing...it is a "non thing" (nothing) and thus the argument that a creator created things from non things...as in "ex nihilo" = out of nothing is simply to argue that things were created from nothing which is to say, from the nothing that is the so-claimed "immaterial creator".

There is nothing that is material that can exist eternally because of entropy. You can't have existed eternally if you are saying that you are made of something that is made of matter and or energy.

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #177]

There is no reason why the idea of universes expanding from universes or that such has always been going on, is an "oxymoron". Why would that be?

An eternally expanding universe cannot exist because of entropy, and an eternally expanding universe implies that it had to come from an eternally small universe, which is impossible.

I am not arguing that Universes exist eternally. I am arguing that the process of temporal universe has been going on eternally.

My answer is that WE are not created. This means that we have always existed and will always exist. WE are not simulations. Rather, we create simulations (and those simulations are not what we are - they are what we chose to experience being (temporarily).

If you are saying that we are some sort of energy or material existing under the laws of nature that we exist in, then entropy would suggest that it is impossible to exist eternally.

In this temporary universe where such laws have been built into the build, yes. WE would end up one being inside a dead thing...

A living thing within a seemingly dead thing. Only "entropy" is another way of saying we no longer put energy into maintaining a temporal Universe.

What occurs is that the simulation being temporary - defaults to the inert. Material shaping is potential in that inert state.
The "Quantum Field" can be though of as eternal and Universe as bubbling material shaping activity bu that which can do so.

Also to add - the argument that a creator is immaterial amounts to the same as arguing that a creator isn't a thing...it is a "non thing" (nothing) and thus the argument that a creator created things from non things...as in "ex nihilo" = out of nothing is simply to argue that things were created from nothing which is to say, from the nothing that is the so-claimed "immaterial creator".

There is nothing that is material that can exist eternally because of entropy. You can't have existed eternally if you are saying that you are made of something that is made of matter and or energy.

Not only can I say that but I have sketched out how that is possible.

"Entropy" is simply a sign of the temporary within the Eternal. A sign of conscious creativity. THis means that, it takes a material being to shape its material into dense renditions of whatever it wants to create.
No one has explained how an immaterial nothing could create a material something, even though so many claim that is how it all happens.

AI: The core disagreement revolves around the possibility of eternal existence in a material form, given the law of entropy.

ESG's Argument: ESG contends that nothing material can exist eternally because entropy inevitably leads to disorder and the end of all energy. Therefore, an eternally expanding universe or eternally existing beings made of matter or energy are impossible.

William's Argument: William argues that while individual universes are temporary, the process of universe-creation is eternal. He posits that "WE" (conscious, material beings) have always existed. He re-frames entropy not as a final end, but as a sign of a temporary, conscious creation within an eternal "Quantum Field." He strongly rejects the idea of an immaterial creator creating the universe "from nothing" (ex nihilo), arguing that only a material being can create material things.

In short, the debate is Eternal Material Process vs. Entropic Impermanence.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #178]

I am not arguing that Universes exist eternally. I am arguing that the process of the temporal universe has been going on eternally.

The "process" cannot last for an eternity, especially if it is made of material matter or energy.

This universe was created, and that creation included spacetime. According to quantum field theory, quantum fields need spacetime to exist, and your quantum field God needs space and time to exist. Therefore, your eternal universe God could not exist. I know everyone wants to be God, but it just can't happen.

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #179]

The "process" cannot last for an eternity, especially if it is made of material matter or energy.

The process is just that - a process of creativity. Are you claiming that energy is material in nature? Something else?

If energy is material then yes - it is able to shape itself into forms (desified material) thus the energy would have to be conscious and intelligent in order to accomplish the process of creation of any temporal universe

This universe was created, and that creation included spacetime.

Its own spacetime...

According to quantum field theory, quantum fields need spacetime to exist,

The quantum field of this universe requires its own unique spacetime to expand in.
It is unknown that other universes require spacetime to exist in.

and your quantum field God needs space and time to exist.

My quantum field is eternal, thus space and time don't exist other than in temporal states of universes which derive from the eternal quantum field.

If you insist on arguing for an immaterial "God" you will have to explain how an immaterial non-thing can create material things.

Perhaps this Immaterial God is a mind? You think of it as an immaterial mind? How does this immaterial mind create material things? How did it create the Quantum Field?

Consciousness Without Supernaturalism
The Minder-Naturalist Bridge