Evidence that universe created itself

[zaangalewa]

The universe was created. What created it? We have scientific theories based on evidence. We don't know if "the universe created itself", whatever that means.

In the end of the universe time could restart for example.

Have you ever considered our universe is just one bubble in an endless Sea of bubbles? Like a lava lamp.

That's a myth.

So we don't know definitively.

What do we not know? We know our unverse is observable - we don't know whether other universes are real.

But you do? Do you have evidence? The Bible doesn't count. I don't care what men said 1500 years ago

If the Catholic philosopher Aristotle and others had not said what they said modern universities for natural science would not exist.

 

[zaangalewa]

What I've got is a pack of playing cards. In this pack there are a trillion trillion different suits, and each suit has a trillion trillion different cards, or perhaps more.

And I ask you to pick one of the cards and tell me which card it is.

You tell me it's the ace of spades (ie, you're saying God created the universe), the chances you are right is so small.

But here's what I've got.

If the universe is so complex it has to have been created by a being or god of some sort, then this being or god has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something. So, you can keep going back as far as you like. The logic that the universe was created by somebody or something doesn't wash.

If the universe couldn't have created itself, then the god who created the universe couldn't have created itself,

You seem not to be familiar with Christian thoughts or paradigmas:

... The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. ...
Athanasian creed

And god created everything out of nothing. So time was created. Augustinus called the creating word of god a timeless word. Timeless and eternal are often synonyms - in a simple way how 1/oo -> 0.

But this all says for example nothing about that god is not able to create himself if he is not existing.

and whoever created that god couldn't have created itself either.

So, you're really at a dead end.

You are at an end with your intuition. God was always what he is since ever - and he will always be new forever. But this all is not what physicists speak about. The spirituality of physics is mathematics and the "god" of physics is the experiment. (That's now another word "god" and means not really god but "deciding criterion"). I personally don't see anything what seperates the belief in god and the natural science physics. All problems in this context are political problems.

 

[zaangalewa]

Stephen Hawking, a mentally and physically disabled man bizarrely regarded as a genius by tailless and hairless monkeys, cited gravity as proof the universe create itself. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." - Hawking.

I guess Mr. Stephen Hawking used here a wrong word. This "nothing" seems to be an empty space with quantum fluctuations - that's what physically comes most near to the expression "nothing". And someone found out that a complete universe is able to expand from a single quantum fluctuation. That's not impossible.

 

[sear]

That's not impossible.

But rare.
If it can happen at all, why only once? Why doesn't a cosmos spring up brand new from my coffee table?

Final Exam. Question:
Define "universe".
Cite 3 examples.

 

[zaangalewa]

But rare.

What is "rare" in case of a unique event?

If it can happen at all, why only once?

In case an empty space with quantum fluctuations had existed we would not know how this could had been because the theory of relativity (and somehow philosophically also Augustinus about 1700 years ago) tells us that there was was no space, no time, no energy and nothing else what we are able to say anything about "before" the universe was (although there was no before) and started to expand.

Why doesn't a cosmos spring up brand new from my coffee table?

If the sum of all energy of a hypothetic universe would be 0 and you could take a look from outside to this universe then you would see nothing because you are not able to make a difference between "no energy" (= not in interaction with anything) and "no existence". So in every point of your coffee table could be an infinite number of universes - but you would never be able to know this from "outside" (if a universe had an outside).

Final Exam. Question:
Define "universe".

Everything all around what's in interaction with us = "We are the universe <-> the universe is us"

Cite 3 examples.

3 examples for what?

 

[Turtlesoup]

Then what created the original universe?

Basic building blocks smaller than elements----come to together and build up to create elements that then make matter. Once energy is added, then the possibility of life also emerges.

 

[Mac1958]

This is "hot" - because energy is not able to be created or to be destroyed within the universe (while an outside not exists). So if energy is not able to be created - howelse is it able to be "here" although the sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe seems to be nil?

We don't know yet! Ain't that cool!

 

[Blues Man]

 

[zaangalewa]

Basic building blocks smaller than elements----come to together and build up to create elements that then make matter. Once energy is added, then the possibility of life also emerges.

But there seems to be something wrong with the idea of self-organisation of matter which "automatically" leads to living stuctures. To remember: Our planet is full of matter but in percentage of the matter of our planet the mass of the biosphere is not big. Compared with the mass of the solar system or the galaxy the mass of living matter is much less in relation. But on the other side needs life the natural laws which lead to this gigantic universe all around us. If this is a life-preserving system then we are less than an atom of a needle in a very complex haystack.
On the other side: What is so damned seldom has a very high value. Living matter is the most valueable matter of the whole universe. Sometimes I feel pain when people do not respect life, because they don't understand this unbelievable present of god. We are his very rich children - and I fear we are also much too often spoiled brats.

 

[sear]

zaangalewa said:
This is "hot" - because energy is not able to be created or to be destroyed within the universe (while an outside not exists). So if energy is not able to be created - howelse is it able to be "here" although the sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe seems to be nil?

We don't know yet! Ain't that cool!

We know.
Einstein explained that while in our terrestrial (Newtonian) experience matter & energy are two separate things, that they can be converted, one to the other. That's what: E=M*C e 2 is all about.
When we detonate an atom bomb, or an H-bomb, we convert matter into energy.
Yet at particle accelerators like CERN, we've converted energy into matter. So Einstein's equation works both ways.

zw used the term "created". The process Einstein & I described is rather more a conversion than a creation.

 

[sear]

But there seems to be something wrong with the idea of self-organisation of matter which "automatically" leads to living stuctures. To remember: Our planet is full of matter but in percentage of the matter of our planet the mass of the biosphere is not big. Compared with the mass of the solar system or the galaxy the mass of living matter is much less in relation. But on the other side needs life the natural laws which lead to this gigantic universe all around us. If this is a life-preserving system then we are less than an atom of a needle in a very complex haystack.
On the other side: What is so damned seldom has a very high value. Living matter is the most valueable matter of the whole universe. Sometimes I feel pain when people do not respect life, because they don't understand this unbelievable present of god. We are his very rich children - and I fear we are also much too often spoiled brats.

Not clear to me what utility the ratio has.
Dr. Carl Sagan said: "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

Thank you for not being an ingrate. I amn't too.

“The entire universe is a form of life.” astronomer / author / professor Bob Berman 19/04/04

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it can happen at all, why only once? Why doesn't a cosmos spring up brand new from my coffee table?

It may have already.

 

[sear]

FI #132

Let's not overlook the point.

We've been perusing the heavens for millennia, and recently, in extraordinary detail. We scan in multiple spectra, visible light, X-ray, radio for example.

In the 3rd millennium it continues to appear there was but one big bang, and there is but one cosmos. The big bang explanation: once there was nothing. Suddenly it exploded.
Does that really make all that much more sense than the Holy Bible's Genesis?

No. I don't think so either.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Basic building blocks smaller than elements----come to together and build up to create elements that then make matter. Once energy is added, then the possibility of life also emerges.

*Atheist Magic*
1. These "basic building blocks" made themselves from *nothing*. It's so easy to do. Ask any atheist to show you how to make something from nothing.
2. The *energy was added* from Magic Nothing. Ask any atheist. Energy is cheap. I mean, except for gasoline. And diesel fuel. And electricity. And batteries.
3, The "possibility of life" emerging from water dripping on rocks is impossible.

Ask any atheist to provide the biochemical mechanism and series of reactions producing the very first molecule of titin, the largest protein in your body as you read this. It is 33,450 amino acid residues in length, each residue one of twenty we have in our bodies. So 1/20 to the 33,450th power is what, students? It is no different from zero.

Godless atheist Richard Dawkins has acknowledged that 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power is "impossible." 1/20th to the 33,450th is somewhat more impossible than merely impossible. But that is just for starters.

Each amino acid is levorotary, not dextrorotary, so multiply the first impossibility by 1/2 to the 33,450th.

Each bond in a polypeptide is of course a peptide bond, as opposed to a non-peptide bond. The probability of the former is roughly 1/2. So raise another 1/2 to the 33,450th power and multiply that by the first two impossibilities.

Finally, every protein is exquisitely folded. What determined how to fold these thousands of proteins? Why the atheists *Magic Nothing* did it! How convenient.

It gets much more impossible than this. Every step in the sequence of synthesis is supposed to make the organism more "fit". So include the entire list of intermediate compounds and their uses for "selection". If they were useful, they must certainly still be produced and functioning. How? Where? Be scientific, atheists. Explain your Magic Nothing. Should be easy for people as *smart* as you claim to be.

Oh, by the way, there are 10,000 other proteins and enzymes for which you must also provide mechanisms and existing, useful intermediaries by the millions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The big bang explanation: once there was nothing. Suddenly it exploded.

* nothing we could observe

And anything that follows determinism and natural law makes more sense than Genesis.

 

[sealybobo]

In the end of the universe time could restart for example.



That's a myth.



What do we not know? We know our unverse is observable - we don't know whether other universes are real.



If the Catholic philosopher Aristotle and others had not said what they said modern universities for natural science would not exist.

it's not a myth. No one has proven that hypothesis wrong.

 

[ding]

But rare.
If it can happen at all, why only once? Why doesn't a cosmos spring up brand new from my coffee table?

Final Exam. Question:
Define "universe".
Cite 3 examples.

Because your coffee table isn't a false vacuum.

 

[ding]

The universe was created. What created it? We have scientific theories based on evidence. We don't know if "the universe created itself", whatever that means.

Have you ever considered our universe is just one bubble in an endless Sea of bubbles? Like a lava lamp.

So we don't know definitively.

But you do? Do you have evidence? The Bible doesn't count. I don't care what men said 1500 years ago

Cosmic background radiation is the evidence for the universe being created from nothing.

 

[sear]

*

The as·ter·isk is traditionally used to conceptually connect two things that in print are separated.
Your disconnected asterisk is a puzzle.

And while I both welcome and vehemently endorse your mention of natural law, I'm not aware of any definitive scientific tie of big bang to known physics. Nothing is not an explosive.

 

[ding]

I guess Mr. Stephen Hawking used here a wrong word. This "nothing" seems to be an empty space with quantum fluctuations - that's what physically comes most near to the expression "nothing". And someone found out that a complete universe is able to expand from a single quantum fluctuation. That's not impossible.

Why isn't it possible? With God all things are possible.