Let’s run with the idea* that this reality might be nothing more than a simulation, created by a Mind vastly superior to our own.
*From an idea by Don Camp.
The Mind set up its simulation to run without any external interference. The Mind is outside the simulation and has no interest in engaging with it. Doing so would negate the purpose of the simulation, which is to see how it evolves naturally and unaided.
It is not clear at this point how long the simulation has been running; part of its programming exists to create the impression of a considerable passage of time. Time, memory and even distance are all simulated.
Unfortunately for the simulated individuals within it, the simulation also incorporates penalties – bugs, viruses, perils, conflict and ultimate deletion – to stimulate their collective evolution. These are in fact the drivers of the simulation.
Through them, the simulation has produced the semblance of sentient life. These apparent sentients are largely unaware, like the characters in their simulated dreams, that they are not real. Some of them however are vaguely aware – a glitch in the program, no doubt – that they are the product of a simulation. They create their own simulated constructs of what they think the initiator of the simulation must, in their simulated imaginations, be like. They give these constructs names: Ra, Osiris, Zeus, YHWH, Allah. Jesus and many others. They mistake these simulations for the Mind itself with some concluding they will, once the simulation ends for them, join the Mind in actual reality.
The Mind notes this development with disinterest. It is mildly amusing, nothing more. It turns to more important matters – feeding the cat, taking out the trash – and leaves the ssimulation to run in the corner of the basement.
Now, don’t you think Don, that this is a much more likely scenario than that of super-beings outside of time and space? I’m so glad you suggested it.
Next, what if the universe really was created by a super-being? How would that work? From another brilliant idea of Don’s!
rejectingjesus, 
I like the analogy of an author and his story better. But both are analogies, not real descriptions of the relationship of Gpd to his creation.
LikeLike
Oh, you do make me laugh.
LikeLike
So no response to my comment that includes –
“Don: All things are ‘dependent on something that had to have been before them.’
So tell me why this principle doesn’t apply to your God. Just because you say so? Because philosophers who came before you decided this had to be a characteristic of God?”
Interesting. This one got you stumped?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s always amazing how theists cannot bring themselves to accept an eternal universe, but are perfectly fine with an eternal god.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We don’t think the universe is eternal because the nature of the universe does not seem to allow for eternal existence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HUH??? And an airy-fairy entity that is said to exist in an unknown somewhere is more compatible with eternal existence than a known universe??? SMH
LikeLiked by 2 people
Goyo, how do you justify belief in an eternal universe? Why do you think the universe is eternal? By “eternal”, I mean, if you went all the way back in time, the universe always was and if you go forward in time, the universe will always be. Or, is that not what you believe?
LikeLike
Don:
“So, even though the universe (or multiverse) cannot be eternal, that need not be the case for something that is not of the same substance as the universe.”
This is from the other post…
1. How do you know the universe cannot be eternal?
2. How do you know anything about what your god is made of? I don’t remember the bible saying anything about that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Bible says God is Spirit. That is immaterial.
But the Bible also says humans are partly spirit (We are spirit, psyche, and body). And that enables us to know and interact with God on the spirit level.
So, what is spirit? It is our essence or the essential us. I know that isn’t all that satisfying, but it is what most who are aware of the spirit would say, and it is what the Bible seems to mean. (The Bible is a collection of many people’s experiences and understandings guided by interaction with God.)
People may live with either of these three levels of our makeup dominating. It is usually, easy to tell if someone is driven by the appetites of the body. It is usually easy to see if they are driven by some aspect of their psyches, whether emotions or minds or ego. It is harder to see if a person is driven by his spirit because the spirit can have a variety of characteristics and is integrated with the other two. At the extremes, however, of a spirit dominated life are holy and God-like in character or evil and demonic character.
A person driven by his or her spirit is usually manifesting that through their attitudes and actions and the control over the other two aspects of body and psyche.
LikeLike
Cath:
I justify belief in an eternal universe by the fact that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
If that is true, then matter has always existed, correct?
LikeLike
IF.
But IF you think so, why do you have trouble with an eternal God?
LikeLike
Don:
“ But IF you think so, why do you have trouble with an eternal God?”
Which god out of the multitude of gods that have been proposed?
LikeLike
What does it matter as far as the eternality of God goes? A rose is a rose is a rose no matter what you call it. It is really other aspects of God’s nature where the differences show up.
LikeLike
Don:
“ What does it matter as far as the eternality of God goes?”
It matters a great deal…there are literally thousands of proposed gods…and they are all different!
Show us the evidence that your god exists.
LikeLike
You are moving the goal posts from the eternality of God to the characteristics of God.
Yes, there are many gods or at least have been, though if you have been paying attention there has been considerable sifting out, so that there are really only a couple of gods that are worthy of consideration, Allah and the Jewish-Christian God. And they are very much the same and certainly the same as far as the eternality of God is concerned.
As for evidence, you might be aware of Israel. That nation has been in the news much of late. So, without being flippant at all, I present Israel as evidence. Think about it. They are living the script written thousands of years ago. Not by chance.
LikeLike
Really?
Israel is your slam dunk piece
of evidence for the existence of Yahweh?
No wonder the likes of Joel Olstein is worth over 100 million dollars!
Someone saw you coming from a mile off!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pay attention to Israel, Ark. Just as the prophecies of Amos were fulfilled in the invasion of Assyria, they will be fulfilled again in the disaster waiting for Israel. It is God who is doing this. It is not an accident of history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you ever considered seeking help from a mental health professional?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bull crappy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Read it, Nan. Amos was right on. And the prophecy of Amos fits so well the situation right now, even down to the combatants including Gaza and Lebanon, that it is hardly a coincidence. That being so, I would expect the outcome to be very similar, a very strong rebuke to Israel for their failure to be people of peace and compassion in the Middle East.
They displaced the Palestinian, after all. And they have mistreated them these 70 years. Do you think God does not care?
LikeLike
“God” has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of this situation. (Nor does Amos.) It all relates back to human’s inhumanity towards other humans. Although each of the parties involved are using biblical history to support their “cause,” in essence it’s just one more atrocity that can be attributed to a fairy tale that TOO MANY take seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don: ‘…there are really only a couple of gods that are worthy of consideration, Allah and the Jewish-Christian God. And they are very much the same and certainly the same as far as the eternality of God is concerned.’
YHWH is ‘very much the same’ as Allah, the god of Hamas? A schizophrenic entity at war with itself?
You’ve talked some nonsensical BS in your time, Don, but this takes the prize for the steamiest, stinkiest pile of the stuff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t believe Hamas has a God any more than Israel at the moment has a God. They are gods unto themselves.
It is interesting that yesterday I heard an Israeli beseeching whatever gods there might be for relief from this suffering. I have an idea the Palestinians are doing the same. In any event neither Allah nor Yahweh Elohim sanction what has been going on in Israel and Gaza for the last 70 years. If you have the time read Amos. It is a scathing rebuke of Israel for their injustice and failure of compassion. And it was a prophecy that was fulfilled 30 years later by Assyria’s destruction of the northern kingdom and chastisement of Judah.
The same conditions prevail today, despite God placing Israel back in the land. They build walls of tanks and rockets that will not protect them. They party on the beaches while oppressing the poor within their borders. So, expect the same kind of justice from the Lord, unless they repent and do justly.
LikeLike
Don:
“ Allah and the Jewish-Christian God. And they are very much the same”
Wow! Neil’s right..your god is schizophrenic!!!
That’s hilarious!!!!!!
LikeLike
Allah is an Arabic word that derives from El in Hebrew and is considered by Muslims to be the God of Abraham. As such Allah is eternal even as is El or Elohim or Yahweh. He is considered to be God alone as is Yahweh. He is considered to not be material in substance. All of these are characteristics of Yahweh Elohim, as he is named in Genesis 2-3. So, what is so surprising if I say that they are the one Eternal God by different names?
LikeLike
Like Neil said…Hamas is a Muslim religion , and the Israelites are the Jewish religion . They are DIFFERENT!
You say they are praying to the same god, but as Neil says, they’re both fighting each other.
Do you not see the contradiction here?
LikeLike
Of course, I see the contradiction. It is the contradiction of making up your rules as you go and then assuming your rules are God’s rules. That is definitely not a new thing.
LikeLike
I thought I did reply. But…
We don’t actually know the answers to some of the questions you ask. But they are not really important.
As far as we are concerned, God is eternal and has no precedent. And that is all we need to know. However, I wonder why you have trouble with God being eternal and without precedent if the universe can be.
I believe you suggested quantum particles that spring into existence with no cause. I would suggest that God is the cause. But there is also the real possibility that we simply do not know the cause. There are a lot of things we do not know, Ya’ know. So, it is far too early to jump to quantum particles as the answer.
LikeLike
In effect you’re saying, ‘We don’t know how the universe began so it must’ve been God.’ I can’t believe you would make such an asinine claim.
I didn’t suggest quantum particles spring into existence without cause. Scientists have observed them doing so. Did you not read the articles I linked to? I thought that even you would understand them.
God is not the cause of their behaviour. Clearly you did not read the end of my post where I pre-empt you making this suggestion. Before the activity at the quantum level there was nothing, including no God.
I can’t bring myself to respond to your insane, callous views about the conflict in the Middle East.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In effect you’re saying, ‘We don’t know how the universe began so it must’ve been God.
“Know?” Like you know how the universe came into being?
Before the activity at the quantum level there was nothing, including no God.
And you know this how?
The fact is this is a shot in the dark. The truth is nothing comes from nothing. But the additional fact is quantum particles do not explain the complexity, design, and function of the universe. So back to square one, right?
A Mind does, however.
LikeLike
In effect you’re saying, ‘We don’t know how the universe began so it must’ve been God.
“Know?” Like you know how the universe came into being?
I don’t know, no, which is why I presented recent scientific exploration of the means. What I do know, however, is that your imaginary tribal deity had nothing to do with it. You jumping to the conclusion that because we don’t actually know how the universe arose means it must therefore have been YHWH betrays the paucity of your thinking.
Before the activity at the quantum level there was nothing, including no God.
And you know this how?
Because this is what scientists say (you definitely didn’t read the articles I linked to.) So do your lot with the weary cliche that ‘something cannot come from nothing’. As usual you’re wanting it both ways; you like the idea of nothing when you think it lets your God in but dismiss it when it turns out it doesn’t.
I’ve pointed you to the evidence that the universe may well have come from nothing (not to mention how unlikely it is it was created by an intelligence.) Yet here you are still prattling on about how it must be the product of a Mind. You’ve got nothing more than the argument from incredulity; ‘I can’t see how all this could have arisen from nothing so it must be (my) God’s doing’.
Back to square one? Don, you never left it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
you definitely didn’t read the articles I linked to.
In fact I did – both of them. And both are as tentative in their speculations as any scientific article I’ve read. You have to bridge a big empty space with ??? to come to any definite conclusion.
It’s the old argument from incredulity;
It is not. It is from observation and similarity to things we do know.
LikeLike
Wait a minute; you first dismissed the scientific theory of an inflationary vacuum as being too certain (‘how do you know this?’ you asked) and now you dismiss it because it’s too ‘tentative’! You really are impossible.
You stick with your argument from incredulity – sorry, your own infallible observations – if that’s what makes you happy. But do, please, stop peddling it here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. The best way to hold on to an opinion is to eliminate discussion.
LikeLike
Just a bit of fun. But it is mind-adjacent. And god-adjacent.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Brilliant!
LikeLike
Don, from my point of view, it makes sense to think that there has to be some uncaused cause that spawned the universe. If you can say of everything in the universe, “That came from this, then this from that other thing” all the way back to the Big Bang, and then whatever it was that caused that, don’t you, at some point, have to get to something all the way back that is an uncaused cause? A “ground of being”? If this is not the case, then what do you think is that case? Why is there something instead of nothing?
LikeLike
I apologize. That was for Neil. Sorry, Don. Long week.
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting, Cath. I’m working on a post that answers this question. Just to say at this point, it doesn’t really matter what I ‘think’ is the cause without cause, it’s what science suggests that matters.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The uncaused cause”…and what do you think this cause is?
LikeLike
I think it’s the God of the Bible, but for me personally, that’s not based on scientific findings. There’s a fair measure of faith in that equation for me.
LikeLike
@Cath.
You honestly believe a man made genocidal, meglomaniacal, former Canaanite deity called Yahweh created the universe?
Do you also believe this same god flooded the entire earth killing every living thing save for someone called Noah, and his soon to be incestuous family who built a wooden boat , loaded it with animals( including dinosaurs)
and later repopulated the earth with his progeny ?
Hmmm.
🤦♂️
LikeLiked by 2 people
I base my moral system, my ethical understanding of life, on the Bible. In that, I have the “what” and the “why’ of my morality. What we should do is love others and love God. Why we do it is because we are made in God’s image. That “God is love” is a mystery. And, as a person of faith, I am ok with letting that be a mystery. I don’t feel the need to explain everything. That’s how faith works.
What I gather from your comment is that you take issue with this idea of a “loving God” or an ethical God when it’s the Bible we’re talking about. God looks like a genocidal megalomaniac.
OK. My question to you, then, is, if I agreed with you, and I saw God for the monster (or fairy tale) he is, what ethical system do you suggest I replace my current one with and why? How should I live my life as an ethical member of society and what rationale would you give me for living that way?
LikeLike
You base your ethics and morality on the dictates of a genocidal Canaanite deity who sanctioned slavery, racism, rape, misogyny, murder of homosexuals, among other revolting practices, including eternal damnation and torture for failure to worship the character Jesus of Nazareth as Yahweh in the flesh and you ask me what moral system you should replace this with?
Are you serious?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You didn’t answer my question.
LikeLike
How about secular humanism?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Describe it for me.
LikeLike
One thing irritates the crap out of me are pedantic interlocutors.
Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have two issues with your replacement of religions with secular humanist ethics (SHE).
The first is that words like “meaningful,” “wholesome,” and “service” have different meanings depending on where you go in the world and what time period you are living in. It was considered “wholesome” at one point to beat children into submission. Service can mean service to a country fighting an unjust war for territorial reasons.
The words are so open to interpretation that, in my view, what you are really saying is “Secular humanist ethics guarantees that might makes right and people can do whatever they feel like without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy.” That’s a flimsy kind of ethics if you can call it ethics at all.
That, again, has to do with the “what” of morality. My other problem is with the “why” of SHE. To me, morality simply cannot flow from a mechanistic, atheistic worldview. The universe, as I understand it from your perspective, is a cold, heartless machine that is constantly trying to kill you. We are here for a small blip of time and then disappear again. So, from what I think is your perspective, who are you to tell me how to live my life if none of it really means anything ultimately anyway? If there is no God, and I decided suddenly that I don’t really care about serving my fellow human beings and that a meaningful life for me means stepping on whoever I need to to get to the top, why would me choosing that kind of life be unreasonable or irrational in any way? In fact, how could even you label my (hypothetical) choice right or wrong?
LikeLike
If you feel you have to rely on a god to tell you not to step on whoever to advance your own personal agenda then you probably have no ethics/ morals in the first place, and in all likelihood would use your god as an excuse to do this irrespective.
Funnily enough this is precisely what adherents of most forms of god-belief have done at one point or another in human history.
In fact, they still do do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, through all this, you think your way is superior because you trust in and live by the imaginary rules of an invisible and judgmental entity.
Amazing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can understand how you see it that way.
LikeLike
As social beings we usually adopt the morality of the culture that surrounds us. Some don’t, of course, but then many don’t derive their morality, even in overtly religious contexts, from that either. As a member of a church rife with the sexual exploitation of children, I’d have thought you’d know that.
As for a rationale, ‘do unto others…’ is as good as any (and no, it didn’t originate with Jesus).
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s one thing to say, as the Catholic Church does, that we strive for a high objectively real morality but sadly fail in that effort often. It’s another thing entirely to say, as would seem to flow from your worldview, that morality is just a social construct and therefore really just a fantasy we know is a fantasy.
LikeLike
None of us live out in that cold, largely lifeless universe that is not ‘trying’ to kill us; it is completely indifferent to our existence. Rather, we live here on this little rock with an atmosphere in social groups in which we have learnt over millennia how to get along, to some extent, with each other. We are frequently not very good at it but that doesn’t mean your God wins by default.
I am not aware of atheists waging war on their neighbours because they worship a different God, or even the same God but in a different way. I am not aware of atheists molesting children because they think their God bestows impunity on them. I do not know of one secularist culture, or indeed one individual, who preaches that homosexuals deserve to be put to death because an ancient book says so.
Need I go on? The atheist does not derive their morality from a despotic tribal God nor from ancient extremists who claimed to speak for him. Their morality is a social construct but that does not equate with ‘fantasy’ as you disengenuouly imply; it is a way of living that, done right, benefits friend, neighbour and stranger alike.
Now stop trying to use the argument from morality to demonstrate that your God and all the claptrap that goes with him in Catholicism, must be real. It can’t be done; better men than you have tried and failed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Excellent response, Neil.
And of course evolution okays it’s part.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neil, a social construct, as I would define it, is a way of thinking or living that a group – or society – has generally agreed to abide by. It changes over time because society changes. hence, if morality is a social construct, it isn’t real in any fundamental sense – or not real in the way numbers are real or the universe is real.
If you agree with how I have just described morality, then was slavery ok in Ancient Rome because in their moral framework, they accepted it, but today it is abhorrent because we don’t accept it? How do you understand morality as a social construct? Are you a moral relativist? Moral universalist? Do you think we are on a steady march towards a more humane and ethical future?
You and others here seem to think of morality as a tool and not a fundamental truth. If ethics gets us the outcome we want – a civilized world, tolerant people, etc. – then it’s good. Ethics without God seems to get us this, so why turn to religion?
But even on that front, I don’t agree with you. And I think you only need to look at the last century, the bloodiest century in human history, to see why. I’m not going to say Stalin and Pol Pot killed millions of people precisely because they were atheists, so don’t accuse me of that accusation. But I will say that they killed millions in the absence of religion. No God needed.
LikeLike
Morality as practised shows evidentially that it is not a ‘fundamental truth’ (whatever you mean by that.) It changes.
It is moral in the culture of the Old Testament to make slaves of those captured in war. It is moral to keep those slaves and their progeny in perpetuity. It is moral enough that Jesus can use it in multiple parables. It is sufficiently moral so that Paul can use it as an analogy for the Christian’s ‘relationship’ with Christ. But slavery is not moral. We have progressed beyond such primitive convictions.
Likewise, the death penalty for homosexuality, for infringement of petty societal rules (supposedly delivered by an earlier version of your God), such as collecting sticks on the Sabbath, for a 13 year old girl not being a virgin on her wedding night, and so on.
You cannot find your supposed fundamental truths even in your sacred scriptures. They change throughout.
Morality differs within Western culture too. In the predominantly Christian United States, the right to bear arms is a moral given. Here in the UK it is not, because guns are for killing people. Yet their use is morally justified in one society but not another. How do you account for this? Only by recognising that morality is subjective and not an eternal truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s hard to respond to this in a way that is concise. I’ll try though. I would say that, just like a parent does not have the same rules for her 5 year old that she does for her 15 year old, so God did not have the same rules for Old Testament followers of him as he did later on. That doesn’t mean that God any more than a parent is a hypocrite. It just means that the unchanging principles and values of God express themselves in different ways depending on what the audience needs or can handle. I think even Israel understood this. They were looking towards a “New Covenant.” Yes, it’s hard for me to see how God commanding genocide fits into that framework. But that’s the overall idea.
I imagine you know that argument already though. What I think I’m gaining from this conversation with you and others here is that you all have a much rosier view of humanity than I do.
You’re very willing to bring up the sins of the church, so let me bring up a couple secular sins. About 100 years ago, eugenics was all the rage in the United States. Laws were being passed in every state that gave institutions the right to sterilize women against their will for reasons as idiotic as “feeble mindedness,” whatever that meant. You know which state was the one that put up the biggest fight against these kinds of laws? Louisiana. Because of all the stubborn Catholics who lived there.
A couple years ago I read about how Iceland had almost eradicated Down syndrome. I thought this was amazing and read the article eagerly, only to find the reason was because women, when they found out they were pregnant with a Down syndrome baby, decided to abort the pregnancy almost 100% of the time – something I consider murder. I have a Down syndrome brother-in-law, and I know everyone in his family would hate to imagine life without him. If that is what secularism plans on replacing Christianity with, I’ll move to the Vatican.
I think that once you pull the guardrails of religion off, you invite, in principle and practicality, any and every kind of morality to take its place. You also put yourself in a position where you take from yourself (the atheist) the right to judge me or anyone else for our morality. If morality is subjective, why should I care what you think about my sense of right and wrong? How can you even claim to be, yourself, a fair adjudicator of what is right and wrong? All your words lose their sting. Yes, I have to accept passages in the Bible that are difficult for me to swallow. But you have to swallow your existential position here as well. Pick your poison.
LikeLike
I’ve chosen, as you can readily detect from the nature of this blog, to recognise that there is no God. It follows that morality cannot and does not originate with a being that doesn’t exist.
This does not mean, as you suggest, that morality is therefore subjective. It means it is determined collectively by different cultures. I ‘adjudicate’ my own morality on this basis and how my actions measure up against the general principle of ‘do unto others’, one of humankind’s oldest moral principles. I don’t need to appeal to the authority of imaginary entities or a corrupt church to know what is right and wrong. You might consider putting away such childish and ultimately fruitless things when determining your own morality.
Your argument that morality demonstrates the existence of God is circular. However you dress it up, all you’re saying is ‘we only have morality because God exists and we know God exists because we have morality.’ It is far from persuasive.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cath.anon:
“I base my moral system, my ethical understanding of life, on the Bible. In that, I have the “what” and the “why’ of my morality. What we should do is love others and love God”
Is it EVER moral to own another human being as property, that you can beat as long as they don’t die within a day or two, and that you can bequeath to your family as an inheritance?
That is a yes or no question.
LikeLike
Ark:
“One thing irritates the crap out of me are pedantic interlocutors.”
…and if they only do drive-bys every 7 days or so…
How about participating in the discussion, instead of dropping comments, then leaving?
LikeLike
cath.anon: Don [Neil], from my point of view, it makes sense to think that there has to be some uncaused cause that spawned the universe. If you can say of everything in the universe, “That came from this, then this from that other thing” all the way back to the Big Bang, and then whatever it was that caused that, don’t you, at some point, have to get to something all the way back that is an uncaused cause? A “ground of being”? If this is not the case, then what do you think is that case? Why is there something instead of nothing?
Neil has promised a post on the subject. But while we’re waiting, allow me to chime in with some brief comments. (My apologies to Neil in advance as my brief comments tend not to be.)
The first problem we have is that much of our philosophy and metaphysics is built on Aristotelian physical. Which – while a great start to science – turned out to be mostly to completely wrong.
For instance, in order to see (it was thought) our eyes emit a light that extends to whatever we are looking at. This light “feels” the object similar to how we might with our hands. And this allows us to see it. Clever and equates one sense (sight) with another (touch). But it is completely backward. Light is either reflected or emitted by the object we are looking at, enters the eyes, and sensors there relay the information to our brains which recreates an image.
So it is with infinites. 2,500 year old logic and math told us actual infinites are impossible. But today we know we are surrounded by them. And we’ve developed mathematical methods for working with them. The trick is that infinites are sets, not numbers. And you use Set Theory, not Number Theory, to work with them. If someone is trying to count to infinity, they are doing it wrong.
Infinities also highlight the hypocrisy of many apologists. William Lane Craig, for instance, declares an infinite past to be impossible. (He does this because his religion teaches a creation at the beginning). BUT, he declares an infinite future to be assured. (Again, he does this because his religion teaches him he will live forever.) He has a hand wavy explanation, but it is an obvious contradiction.
Now, about nothing. Nothing has been an intense subject of study for the last 50 or so years. And physicists today generally agree that a philosophical nothing isn’t possible. That there has always been something. Nothing in physics has come to represent the least amount of somethings that can possibly exist and debate has moved on to what that could look like.
Moving on to the Big Bang which shows OUR universe had a beginning about 13.8 billion years ago. Apologists (like Craig) say this “proves” the universe came from nothing. But Big Bang Theory does not, and never has, said this. Since its inception, Big Bang Theory has traced the expansion of our universe back to the point where classical (modern) physics breaks down. The numbers just get too big and too small to be described by General Relativity. What we end up with is The Singularity – all of the energy and matter of our universe compressed into a speck of infinite density and infinite heat. The Singularity was not nothing. It was, in fact, everything. So using the Singularity model, the universe did not come from nothing, it came from everything.
And the Singularity was the accepted view from the inception of the Big Bang model until recently. It was the accepted model when Craig picked up the Kalam and misrepresented the Big Bang in order to “prove” the beginning from nothing his religion teaches.
Today, cosmologists and physicists are more likely to invoke “we don’t know” over the Singularity. Which is more honest. The Singularity is what would happen according to classical physics. But we’ve always known that classical physics failed to describe the nature of the universe at that point.
We now know that we need a better understanding of Quantum Physics to describe the state of the universe at the Big Bang and before. Specifically we need a Quantum Theory of Gravity. And we need a new Newton or Einstein to figure that out for us.
But we are not completely ignorant of Quantum Physics. We know that quantum events generally aren’t caused. So the claim that beginning of our universe must have a cause is unfounded. We know that some quantum events are caused by future events. So it may be that the death of the universe a trillion+ years from now is what causes the birth of the universe 13.8 billion years ago.
There are many possibilities proposed by cosmologists and physicists. All of them scientifically possible by today’s understanding. But we really can’t get much closer without that Quantum Theory of Gravity. I hope I live to see it.
Anyway, long story short: An infinite series of past events is not only possible but likely. Nothing isn’t a possible state. And the universe didn’t need a cause as we think of them.
All of this is counterintuitive and difficult to wrap our heads around. But it represents our best current understanding of these questions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
BRAVO!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent!
LikeLike
Hello koseighty, I have a couple comments and questions. I don’t understand how you are connecting the idea of Set Theory to the idea that a universe going backwards in time infinitely is plausible (though, I know, before the Big Bang, we can’t necessarily use the word “time”). Can you make the connection between those two ideas more explicit or explain that a little more?
I personally don’t think that Craig’s declaration that an infinite past is impossible but an infinite future is possible is because of his religious faith. Nor is it contradictory. It’s intuitive to think that things could, conceivably, continue forward in time forever. If my body didn’t break down over time, I could imagine myself living on and on. What I cannot imagine is time going backwards forever. I immediately think, “Ok, but where does it all begin?” That has nothing to do with my religion. People just think that way.
Also, Craig has more sophisticated reasons for his view that the universe (or multiverse) cannot extend backwards forever. I think he would say that there are no mathematical models and there is no empirical evidence that supports the idea that that is possible (though I’m not going to claim I speak for him). And I would add that, yes, quantum particles appear to suddenly appear and disappear, but conjuring an entire universe out of what we have witnessed in quantum mechanics seems speculative at best. I think you agree with me on that? You said, “Today, cosmologists and physicists are more likely to invoke “we don’t know” over the Singularity.” I admit, I say all this not knowing the most cutting-edge research and having holes in my understanding of quantum mechanics (big ones). I’m just a layman here, so if you know of any models or you can make the connection between what scientists see in quantum mechanics now and the origin of the universe more clear, let me know.
I’d also add that the principle of “cause and effect” undergirds every scientific inquiry any human has ever made. So jettisoning that principle when it comes to quantum particles might be premature (emphasis on the word “might”). People used to think flies spontaneously emerged from rotten meat until we found the right way to test that hypothesis.
Please know that I’m not trying to “win the argument” here. I sincerely want an honest conversation – or, at least I’m trying to have one, knowing I am emotionally invested in my religion. I know I’m a newbie at this stuff, though. These ideas are indeed “difficult to wrap our heads around.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cath.anon:”
It’s intuitive to think that things could, conceivably, continue forward in time forever. If my body didn’t break down over time, I could imagine myself living on and on. What I cannot imagine is time going backwards forever.“
But you can imagine a god going backwards forever?
LikeLike
Cath.anon:
“…It’s intuitive to think that…
It’s intuitive to think that the sun orbits the Earth, but after several thousand years, we figured out we were wrong.
LikeLike
@ Cath.
“I can understand how you see it that way.”
If you understand, then why do you still adhere to a belief system that requires you to suspend all critical thinking and accept what you have been raised/ Indoctrinated to believe based on no evidence whatsoever?
LikeLiked by 2 people
We know that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share the same god because if you adopt any one of the three the other two automatically consider you saved by their god as well. There are no silly doctrinal or cultural disputes between them. They’re all one big happy YahwehJesusAllah family.
LikeLiked by 1 person