Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Something From Nothing Argument

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:32:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Who said that the Universe came from nothing; and even if it were so, why can't something come from nothing?

Do people assert this, just because "something from nothing" doesn't "feel" right? Is this an appeal to emotion? Or is there a logical reasoning process behind this.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:40:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 7:32:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Who said that the Universe came from nothing; and even if it were so, why can't something come from nothing?

Do people assert this, just because "something from nothing" doesn't "feel" right? Is this an appeal to emotion? Or is there a logical reasoning process behind this.

Probably based on the idea that, if there's nothing, then that leaves nothing for the something to come from. Law of conservation of matter.

Though, I've heard of spontaneous generation of particles before.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:47:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If we have nothing, then nothing is happening. If the universe doesn't change at all, then it can't change into a state in which something is happening.

Seems simple enough to me.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:47:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 7:40:12 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/13/2010 7:32:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Who said that the Universe came from nothing; and even if it were so, why can't something come from nothing?

Do people assert this, just because "something from nothing" doesn't "feel" right? Is this an appeal to emotion? Or is there a logical reasoning process behind this.

Probably based on the idea that, if there's nothing, then that leaves nothing for the something to come from. Law of conservation of matter.

Yeah, but when I bring that up, they reject the part that says matter and energy cannot be created, thus denying a creator.

Though, I've heard of spontaneous generation of particles before.

There ya go.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:49:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 7:47:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
If we have nothing, then nothing is happening.

If we have nothing, then nothing is happening yet. That doesn't negate that something has the potential to happen.

Nothingness is infinite potential to be anything!

If the universe doesn't change at all, then it can't change into a state in which something is happening.

No one said the Universe doesn't change at all.

Seems simple enough to me.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:52:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 7:49:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/13/2010 7:47:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
If we have nothing, then nothing is happening.

If we have nothing, then nothing is happening yet. That doesn't negate that something has the potential to happen.

But what will happen to cause that something to occur?

Nothingness is infinite potential to be anything!

You mean, like how my blank sheet of paper can be any picture imaginable? Well, the problem there would be that I still need pencils and crayons.

If the universe doesn't change at all, then it can't change into a state in which something is happening.

No one said the Universe doesn't change at all.

If nothing exists, then what can change within the universe?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:53:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 7:49:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Nothingness is infinite potential to be anything!

No, you're treating "nothing" as a kind of something. Absolute nothing has no potentialities. It is the absence of any and everything.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:56:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 7:52:52 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/13/2010 7:49:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If we have nothing, then nothing is happening yet. That doesn't negate that something has the potential to happen.

But what will happen to cause that something to occur?

Nothing. What causes an apple to grow from an apple tree? There was nothing there at the tip of the branch, then suddenly, an apple grew from it.

Nothingness is infinite potential to be anything!

You mean, like how my blank sheet of paper can be any picture imaginable? Well, the problem there would be that I still need pencils and crayons.

Again, things grow into existence. Who is growing you? You're just growing with no one there to stretch you.

No one said the Universe doesn't change at all.

If nothing exists, then what can change within the universe?

Nothing into something is one example of a possible change.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:58:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 7:53:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/13/2010 7:49:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Nothingness is infinite potential to be anything!

No, you're treating "nothing" as a kind of something.

Can one exist without the other?

Absolute nothing has no potentialities.

So you claim.

It is the absence of any and everything.

Sure, but it still has the potential to be something.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:00:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 7:56:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/13/2010 7:52:52 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/13/2010 7:49:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If we have nothing, then nothing is happening yet. That doesn't negate that something has the potential to happen.

But what will happen to cause that something to occur?

Nothing. What causes an apple to grow from an apple tree? There was nothing there at the tip of the branch, then suddenly, an apple grew from it.
Have you taken a biology course? Matter, mostly nutrients and water, are transered through the ecosystem by energy until they come to the tree, which puts that matter to use in growing an apple. However, if there were no matter, the apple could not grow. At the tip of the branch was air, which was displaced by the apple.

Nothingness is infinite potential to be anything!

You mean, like how my blank sheet of paper can be any picture imaginable? Well, the problem there would be that I still need pencils and crayons.

Again, things grow into existence. Who is growing you? You're just growing with no one there to stretch you.

I am eating food. My body uses this food to add molecules to my body. Seriously, learn biology.

No one said the Universe doesn't change at all.

If nothing exists, then what can change within the universe?

Nothing into something is one example of a possible change.

If nothing is immediately followed by something, then the state of nothingness in the universe cannot be maintained for more than an instant. Otherwise, we have eternal nothingness.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:01:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 7:58:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/13/2010 7:53:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/13/2010 7:49:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Nothingness is infinite potential to be anything!

No, you're treating "nothing" as a kind of something.

Can one exist without the other?
"Nothing" is a lack of existence. Treating it as a physical object makes no sense.

Absolute nothing has no potentialities.

So you claim.

So you disclaim.
It is the absence of any and everything.

Sure, but it still has the potential to be something.

How so?
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:05:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is the reason that I've been looking into the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mehanics, don't ask me questions about t though because I don't completely understand it myself. Before I actually googled it I had the layman's version of this in my head.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

It would seem to me that it would be possible for the something in one of the many worlds could somehow effect the something in ours which would create the universe as we know it. I could be wrong in my interpretaion of the interpretation, as I said I only recently found out that it existed.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:05:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Adding attributes onto negatives has been a source for the most powerful logical fallacies ever. Recall Kant's assertion that existence is not a predicate, but something that precedes predication.

Consider the classic Ontological:

God is a being such that nothing is greater
It is greater to exist than to not exist
Therefore, god must exist by definition.

The problem is that people forget that in the case of a negative, it does not inherently exist except by way of showing that its direct opposite does not exist.

"Nothing" is the state of non-existence. Nothingness cannot inherently have any characteristic. Announcing that nothingness has potential is, in and of itself, a logical fallacy.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:07:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:01:27 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/13/2010 7:58:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/13/2010 7:53:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/13/2010 7:49:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Nothingness is infinite potential to be anything!

No, you're treating "nothing" as a kind of something.

Can one exist without the other?
"Nothing" is a lack of existence. Treating it as a physical object makes no sense.

Absolute nothing has no potentialities.

So you claim.

So you disclaim.
It is the absence of any and everything.

Sure, but it still has the potential to be something.

How so?

This. And to add treating "nothingness" as ANYTHING is absurd. Only things that exist have potentialities.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:07:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:00:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
Have you taken a biology course? Matter, mostly nutrients and water, are transered through the ecosystem by energy until they come to the tree, which puts that matter to use in growing an apple. However, if there were no matter, the apple could not grow. At the tip of the branch was air, which was displaced by the apple.

Ah, so there is a source behind this nothingness?

I am eating food. My body uses this food to add molecules to my body. Seriously, learn biology.

For some reason, Biology was the one class I sat and joked around in. Other than that, I learn biology from a few Richard Dawkins clips here and there.

If nothing is immediately followed by something, then the state of nothingness in the universe cannot be maintained for more than an instant. Otherwise, we have eternal nothingness.

I never said immediately. If there is no time in nothingness, "immediately" is meaningless.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:09:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:05:08 PM, Korashk wrote:
This is the reason that I've been looking into the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mehanics, don't ask me questions about t though because I don't completely understand it myself. Before I actually googled it I had the layman's version of this in my head.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

It would seem to me that it would be possible for the something in one of the many worlds could somehow effect the something in ours which would create the universe as we know it. I could be wrong in my interpretaion of the interpretation, as I said I only recently found out that it existed.

Yeah, that's basically my world view. Hawking's proposition that many bubble Universes pop in and out of existence.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:12:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:05:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Adding attributes onto negatives has been a source for the most powerful logical fallacies ever. Recall Kant's assertion that existence is not a predicate, but something that precedes predication.

Consider the classic Ontological:

God is a being such that nothing is greater
It is greater to exist than to not exist
Therefore, god must exist by definition.

The problem is that people forget that in the case of a negative, it does not inherently exist except by way of showing that its direct opposite does not exist.

"Nothing" is the state of non-existence. Nothingness cannot inherently have any characteristic. Announcing that nothingness has potential is, in and of itself, a logical fallacy.

You realize that you yourself are adding attributes to nothingness, right?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:13:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:05:08 PM, Korashk wrote:
It would seem to me that it would be possible for the something in one of the many worlds could somehow effect the nothing in ours which would create the universe as we know it. I could be wrong in my interpretaion of the interpretation, as I said I only recently found out that it existed.

Fix'd
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:15:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:12:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/13/2010 8:05:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Adding attributes onto negatives has been a source for the most powerful logical fallacies ever. Recall Kant's assertion that existence is not a predicate, but something that precedes predication.

Consider the classic Ontological:

God is a being such that nothing is greater
It is greater to exist than to not exist
Therefore, god must exist by definition.

The problem is that people forget that in the case of a negative, it does not inherently exist except by way of showing that its direct opposite does not exist.

"Nothing" is the state of non-existence. Nothingness cannot inherently have any characteristic. Announcing that nothingness has potential is, in and of itself, a logical fallacy.

You realize that you yourself are adding attributes to nothingness, right?

How is he doing that?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:18:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:09:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/13/2010 8:05:08 PM, Korashk wrote:
This is the reason that I've been looking into the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mehanics, don't ask me questions about t though because I don't completely understand it myself. Before I actually googled it I had the layman's version of this in my head.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

It would seem to me that it would be possible for the something in one of the many worlds could somehow effect the something in ours which would create the universe as we know it. I could be wrong in my interpretaion of the interpretation, as I said I only recently found out that it existed.

Yeah, that's basically my world view. Hawking's proposition that many bubble Universes pop in and out of existence.

Even so, if a universe could have it's beginning within another 'parallel' universe, at some point there has to have been a single, initial universe to have started this spontaneous creation of other universes, which brings us back to the initial problem.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:19:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:12:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/13/2010 8:05:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Adding attributes onto negatives has been a source for the most powerful logical fallacies ever. Recall Kant's assertion that existence is not a predicate, but something that precedes predication.

Consider the classic Ontological:

God is a being such that nothing is greater
It is greater to exist than to not exist
Therefore, god must exist by definition.

The problem is that people forget that in the case of a negative, it does not inherently exist except by way of showing that its direct opposite does not exist.

"Nothing" is the state of non-existence. Nothingness cannot inherently have any characteristic. Announcing that nothingness has potential is, in and of itself, a logical fallacy.

You realize that you yourself are adding attributes to nothingness, right?

It's one thing to *describe* nothingness with attributes and traits. It's another to base an argument off of it. So long as any statement about nothingness is made in the negative, you cannot make an argument with it, which is safer than making a fallacious one.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:35:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:13:08 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/13/2010 8:05:08 PM, Korashk wrote:
It would seem to me that it would be possible for the something in one of the many worlds could somehow effect the nothing in ours which would create the universe as we know it. I could be wrong in my interpretaion of the interpretation, as I said I only recently found out that it existed.

Fix'd

Nothing isn't "in" anywhere.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:45:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:18:27 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 4/13/2010 8:09:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yeah, that's basically my world view. Hawking's proposition that many bubble Universes pop in and out of existence.

Even so, if a universe could have it's beginning within another 'parallel' universe, at some point there has to have been a single, initial universe to have started this spontaneous creation of other universes, which brings us back to the initial problem.

Says you. The Multiverse is generally accepted to be eternal. There was no "first" Universe. They sprout in and out of existence eternally.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:46:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:19:03 PM, Kleptin wrote:
It's one thing to *describe* nothingness with attributes and traits. It's another to base an argument off of it. So long as any statement about nothingness is made in the negative, you cannot make an argument with it, which is safer than making a fallacious one.

Fair enough, but I don't see how saying that "nothing" has the potential to be "something" is fallacious. Potentiality isn't necessarily an "attribute." However, it has the potential to have attributes and thus, be something.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:54:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:46:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/13/2010 8:19:03 PM, Kleptin wrote:
It's one thing to *describe* nothingness with attributes and traits. It's another to base an argument off of it. So long as any statement about nothingness is made in the negative, you cannot make an argument with it, which is safer than making a fallacious one.

Fair enough, but I don't see how saying that "nothing" has the potential to be "something" is fallacious. Potentiality isn't necessarily an "attribute." However, it has the potential to have attributes and thus, be something.

because "nothing" has nothing- not even potential. tell me how the absence of every imaginable thing can, without any imput, have potential? a quantum vacuum has potential because it is not technically nothing. perhaps, according to quantum theory, a true "nothingness" is impossible since the vacuum is defined as the lowest possible energy state. i am not sure what physics says on that question. but its very clear that while a quantum vacuum state may have potential, true nothingness cannot.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 9:06:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:46:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Fair enough, but I don't see how saying that "nothing" has the potential to be "something" is fallacious. Potentiality isn't necessarily an "attribute." However, it has the potential to have attributes and thus, be something.

Well, you're stuck with something else in that case.

1. Your thesis is that something can come from nothing.
2. In other words, nothingness contains the potential for existence.
3. Your supporting argument is that nothingness has the infinite potential to have attributes.
4. In other words, that nothingness contains the potential to have predicates.
5. What has a predicate, inherently exists.

This reduces down to:

"Nothingness has the potential for existence because nothingness has the potential for existence".

Yet another logical fallacy.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 9:10:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:45:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/13/2010 8:18:27 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 4/13/2010 8:09:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yeah, that's basically my world view. Hawking's proposition that many bubble Universes pop in and out of existence.

Even so, if a universe could have it's beginning within another 'parallel' universe, at some point there has to have been a single, initial universe to have started this spontaneous creation of other universes, which brings us back to the initial problem.

Says you. The Multiverse is generally accepted to be eternal. There was no "first" Universe. They sprout in and out of existence eternally.

How convenient. So this entire theory is based on anecdotal evidence and unfalsifiable presuppositions. Fantastic.

'Always has been and always will be'. Sounds familiar...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 9:23:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 9:10:43 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 4/13/2010 8:45:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Says you. The Multiverse is generally accepted to be eternal. There was no "first" Universe. They sprout in and out of existence eternally.

How convenient. So this entire theory is based on anecdotal evidence and unfalsifiable presuppositions. Fantastic.

There's no reason to suppose a beginning. Since one Universe popped into existence, we already know that it's possible and has happened at least once. It is also likely that it has happened multiple times.

This theory can be concluded just by using reason.

'Always has been and always will be'. Sounds familiar...

Yeah, it does sound familiar. God. However, it is most plausible that the Universe or Multiverse "always has been and always will be."

As Carl Sagan said, instead of saying God always existed and created the Universe, why don't we save a step and say the Universe always existed.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 9:35:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 9:23:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/13/2010 9:10:43 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 4/13/2010 8:45:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Says you. The Multiverse is generally accepted to be eternal. There was no "first" Universe. They sprout in and out of existence eternally.

How convenient. So this entire theory is based on anecdotal evidence and unfalsifiable presuppositions. Fantastic.

There's no reason to suppose a beginning. Since one Universe popped into existence, we already know that it's possible and has happened at least once. It is also likely that it has happened multiple times.

Why is it likely to have happened multiple times?

1. For all intents and purposes, time does not exist when a universe does not.

2. The existence of this universe may prohibit the potential for the existence of more universes. The same way we validate the reality of this universe is the same way we know other universes aren't popping up.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 9:51:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 9:35:39 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/13/2010 9:23:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
There's no reason to suppose a beginning. Since one Universe popped into existence, we already know that it's possible and has happened at least once. It is also likely that it has happened multiple times.

Why is it likely to have happened multiple times?

There is no law that states that only one universe can come into existence. Also, in the sea of hyperspace, it is very likely that there are multiple universes, just like an ocean has multiple water molecules. Have we ever discovered something that exists as a one and only, unique thing that exists nowhere else? Or do we discover things that exist in multiples.

2. The existence of this universe may prohibit the potential for the existence of more universes.

Says who and on what grounds?

The same way we validate the reality of this universe is the same way we know other universes aren't popping up.

Again, this is baseless. How can you say that we KNOW other universes aren't popping up? Who gave you this special knowledge?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat