Why must the universe have a "beginning"?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Seemingly all matter within the range of human perception can be traced back to a specific origin. Your house was designed and assembled on site by construction crews. Your car was most likely manufactured in an assembly line in Detroit. The parts comprising your computer were constructed in various spots around China, India, and the United States.

Niether a house, a car, nor a computer are capable of independent manifestation; each requires a creator. Consequently, many (scientists included) automatically assume that this concept must likewise apply to the macro-universe and the various entities it comprises. Matter cannot just 'exist'. It must be created, hence the existance of this planet, that sun, those stars, and every galactical body in between.

But is it illogical, in regard to the universe and it's origin, to abandon this law under the presumption that the matter comprising our surroundings (not to mention our very being) has ALWAYS been here, in one shape or form? The perpetual universe theory (not sure if it has ever been assigned a specific name, so I will make one up) holds that all existing matter has/will be present throughout eternity, constantly evolving.

More specifically, is the state of nothingness metaphysically plausible? Can a realm be utterly void of all matter, particles, and forces associated with the physical world? A vacuum is the obvious solution, but scientists have long since determined that even these are comprised of certain various entities which will react with oncomming matter such as light. To imagine a state of nothingness is beyond the realm of human perception. We can picture a black void, of course, but even 'black' is considered to "something".

Whether our puny subjective minds can imagine such a state is another issue entirely, but more towards the real subject at hand; can the state of nothingness persist in the objective world? Could it have existed (or not existed, rather) before the presumed "beginning" of our universe?

[Curious]

The idea of an eternal universe is not a new one, nor is the really fundamental question: Why should there be something rather than nothing? Why any universe at all?

This is the basic problem of existence.

There is something. We honestly don't know why. Some of us have a psychological need that there is an answer to the question WHY so they accept the claims of those who assert that they know. But they really don't know either.
Does there have to be a reason? If there is a reason, why do those who claim to have the reason always assume that we (humans) are somehow an important part of that reason. What if we are just part of the temporary biological growth on the surface of a rather insignificant satellite of a rather insignificant star?

I really hate to cite other peoples ideas on a discussion forum but it might be an idea to look into the zero point field in this case. On the point of an initial zero state, then I honestly believe that there would be no potential (which we obviously have). To believe in such an origin would, in my opinion, concede the existence of an external primer. Having said that, to believe in any origin at all seems to miss the point entirely.

[McCulloch]

I really hate to cite other peoples ideas on a discussion forum but it might be an idea to look into the zero point field in this case. On the point of an initial zero state, then I honestly believe that there would be no potential (which we obviously have). To believe in such an origin would, in my opinion, concede the existence of an external primer. Having said that, to believe in any origin at all seems to miss the point entirely.

Maybe it is late but I have little clue of what you just said.

[wgreen]

I think perhaps we are off topic from the original post, but I don't know that a new one is necessary at this point.

There is something. We honestly don't know why.

Is the question "why?" an important one?

If so, are we to try to answer it?

Viewing things from a naturalistic/materialistic perspective ("matter (whatever that is)" and physical causes are all there is), then of course it is not only possible that we are an insignificant mold on an insignificant rock, but it is obviously true that is all we are.

But if the the naturalistic perspective is abandoned, then other possibilities arise, possibilities that fit better with mankind's innate sense of "significance," "meaning," and purpose--his/her innate sense that he/she is more than just an insignificant mold, more than just a tiny, expendible cog in a great, impersonal machine, more than just an machine himself/herself.

[McCulloch]

Viewing things from a naturalistic/materialistic perspective ... then of course it is not only possible that we are an insignificant mold on an insignificant rock, but it is obviously true that is all we are.

But if the the naturalistic perspective is abandoned, then other possibilities arise, possibilities that fit better with mankind's innate sense of "significance," "meaning," and purpose--his/her innate sense that he/she is more than just an insignificant mold, more than just a tiny, expendible cog in a great, impersonal machine, more than just an machine himself/herself.

I am still waiting for convincing evidence that the naturalistic perspective should be abandoned. That the other perspectives, all quite unproven and hypothetical, are any more than wishful thinking.

[wgreen]

I am still waiting for convincing evidence that the naturalistic perspective should be abandoned. That the other perspectives, all quite unproven and hypothetical, are any more than wishful thinking.

Is it possible to find evidence against a naturalistic perspective when operating from a naturalistic perspective? What would such evidence look like?

[McCulloch]

I am still waiting for convincing evidence that the naturalistic perspective should be abandoned. That the other perspectives, all quite unproven and hypothetical, are any more than wishful thinking.

Is it possible to find evidence against a naturalistic perspective when operating from a naturalistic perspective? What would such evidence look like?

I am not the one suggesting that such evidence exists. You tell me.

[harvey1]

Is it possible to find evidence against a naturalistic perspective when operating from a naturalistic perspective? What would such evidence look like?

In my opinion it would be a philosophical argument. For example, if you could show that there were contradictions and inconsistencies in the perspective, then this would be evidence against the naturalistic perspective (or any philosophical perspective for that matter).

[wgreen]

I am still waiting for convincing evidence that the naturalistic perspective should be abandoned. That the other perspectives, all quite unproven and hypothetical, are any more than wishful thinking.

Is it possible to find evidence against a naturalistic perspective when operating from a naturalistic perspective? What would such evidence look like?

I am not the one suggesting that such evidence exists. You tell me.

But McCulloch, you did say "I am still waiting for convincing evidence that the naturalistic perspective should be abandoned." This suggests that you think that such evidence is at least possible or conceivable or not logically impossible. I'm not saying you expect to find it, only that you seem to say it is not logically impossible or inconceivable. If such evidence was absolutely impossible, then it would not make sense to wait for it.

I am not looking for such evidence. I don't think it exists. That is, I don't think that someone looking at the world from a naturalistic perspective can ever see such evidence. His/her perspective logically precludes it.

I was asking if you thought that it might be possible for you to see evidence that would convince you of the falsity of naturalism. If so, what would such evidence look like? Can you give an example of a piece of evidence that might disprove naturalism from a naturalistic perspective?

If not, if such evidence is not possible, then one should not wait for it--it's not coming.

[harvey1]

...I don't think that someone looking at the world from a naturalistic perspective can ever see such evidence. His/her perspective logically precludes it.

Oh, I definitely disagree on two counts. Firstly, I know of no contentious philosophy that doesn't have opposing evidence against it, and second if such contrary evidence did not exist, then it would be perfectly valid to hold to a naturalistic stance since it lacks any evidence against it whereas a non-naturalistic stance does have evidence against it (e.g., we don't go before God's throne on Capital Hill to pick our new president every four years).

I was asking if you thought that it might be possible for you to see evidence that would convince you of the falsity of naturalism. If so, what would such evidence look like? Can you give an example of a piece of evidence that might disprove naturalism from a naturalistic perspective? If not, if such evidence is not possible, then one should not wait for it--it's not coming.

It's a valid question, but I'm afraid that all the metaphysical naturalist has to do is say, "naturalism would be false if convincing evidence for supernaturalism were to be discovered. This would be convincing evidence against metaphysical naturalism."

[bernee51]

But if the the naturalistic perspective is abandoned, then other possibilities arise, possibilities that fit better with mankind's innate sense of "significance," "meaning," and purpose--his/her innate sense that he/she is more than just an insignificant mold, more than just a tiny, expendible cog in a great, impersonal machine, more than just an machine himself/herself.

Is there an 'inate' sense of 'significance' of the species homo sapiens...or is it something that is an accullturation. As the manifestation of this sense of the inate is different from culture to culture and from one time to another I would suggest the the manifestation of it is. But what is the source of this so-called 'inate' sense?

The 'other perspective' you mention is an implication of the existence of 'the other' - i.e. something that has provided this apparent special place or state of being for humans in particulatar.

My take on this 'other' is the mere fact that we are cognate beings, we are aware of our own consciousness. The other IS our consciousness, what we observe as the manifestation of this consciousness is our sense of an individual self, our perceptions of the phenomenal world and our relationship to it.