In that case, it’s a good thing that there are things we’ll never know, isn’t it? Otherwise, we’d at some point be all done journeying, with nothing left to find out.
However you define the word God, you’ve still got the problem of well, then, how come that god exists? what created God?
The question, when you take it back that far, isn’t really “did God create the universe?” It’s “Why is there anything at all?” Given an answer to that one, no matter what the answer is, some sort of universe can be built on it. But “Why is there anything at all?” isn’t answerable with “God” unless there’s an answer to “Why is there God?” Which would still basically be an answer to the same question. (And which answer, of course, we haven’t got.)
That’s a tough one. I have no idea how to answer that. The best I can do is to point to an episode of the podcast Daniel and Kelly’s Extraordinary Universe. Daniel, a particle physicist, recently interviewed someone (I forget their name, but it was another prominent physicist), about this topic, and the conclusion that they came to is that the question “why is there anything at all” is a non-sensical question. I don’t agree with that, but I don’t have a good answer, or even any answer at all, as an alternative response.
One hypothesis I’ve seen is that “nothingness is unstable”. That is, if there’s literally nothing - including no physical laws - then there’s also nothing to keep something from “just springing into existence”.
The universe exists, in toto, within each entity that it contains and is in a constant state of recursively creating and destroying itself. How this process got started is not a valid question because, as previously noted, “before” cannot relate to a period in which time does not exist. And the universe is not “infinite” in a way that we can comprehend because it is folded around itself.
In this context, I assert that space exists in order to contain stuff, therefore, stuff itself creates the space that contains it.
If you find these notions too outlandish to entertain, apply the J.B.S. Haldane aphorism, The universe is not only stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than youcanimagine, in consideration of the fact that I was able imagine that weirdness (I think acid may have been involved).
This is always a good one to watch if you ever need reminding of how small and insignificant we are , it’s a you tube that maps out the age of the universe. “
Now doubt it gets pretty speculative towards the end, and no doubt the wiser physics crowd here can point out some errors , but as someone one said , space (and time) is big , like really really big.
( added quotes to the link as it wouldn’t let me post other wise )
That’s one theory I really can’t wrap my head around. When I first heard about it (the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics), my initial thoughts were that surely the person / people who came up with it were just trolling the scientific community with a Hollywood trope. But no, apparently it’s something that is taken seriously.
Of course, but your OP asked about OUR universe, so my answer was directed at that. The fact is, though, that it is immensely unlikely that we’ll ever have a final answer. Even if you take the ultimate shortcut and say “God”, the question still remains, “Where did HE come from?”
Rephrasing from what has been said about the possibility of intelligent life:
Either it has always existed in some form, or it came into creation out of nothing. Either way is mind-boggling.
Then try to understand the concept of “nothing,” whatever it is. It’s definitely not empty space, because that’s still “something” (courtesy of N.D. Tyson).
This, to me, seems akin to the panspermia argument for life on earth. If our universe was spawned by one of the other multi-verses, where did that universe come from? That is assuming I understand the rudimentary concepts of “multi-verse”, which I’m sure I don’t.
Maybe it should have been there, I wasn’t sure if it was lofty enough. If needs to be relocated, that wouldn’t bother me a bit.
Intelligent life seems to me easy enough, once you’ve got matter, the particular laws that seem to govern the interactions of that matter, and enough time. You just need a shitload of time, and there seems to be plenty of evidence of that.
It’s the “once you’ve got matter” part that’s the problem. Quite possibly also the “once you’ve got time and laws of interaction”.
What is “nothing”, though (besides an Elizabethan vulgarity)? How do you define it (bearing in mind that “nothing” is not the same thing as “nothingness”)? What are its properties – does it even have properties? Do the rules of math even apply here?
What does “came from” mean when the notion of time itself does not exist outside the X we live in?
All of these topics have been studied a LOT by real scientists and real philosophers. There’s plenty of reading available on what’s known, suspected, and conjectured. And also on what’s been ruled out.
The “It stands to reason” arguments based on common colloquial uses of terms like “something” and “nothing” and “before” and “after” that folks are trotting out are the stuff disposed of in the first hour’s lecture.
