Again, I don’t know. I’m perplexed that anyone would be so bold as to claim they do know at this point.
I have no conception of what preceded the Big Bang. I am even willing to grant that any notion of something “preceding” the Big Bang might be nonsensical if it was in fact the origin of time as well as the local presentation of the universe.
But you know what only adds on another layer of nonsense? A creator god for which there is no evidence, except our ignorance as to the origin (or if there even was an “origin”) of our universe.
(1) How do you know that?
(2) Where did that universe come from?
I don’t see how you’ve done anything to resolve your problem with the idea of an infinite regress, except by moving it to the left a little bit.
I think we may be using different definitions. As a deist, I use the word god to describe the source of our Big Bang, regardless of the form that thing might have. Obviously it isn’t Yahweh, who isn’t real.
Here’s what we know, again at least based on my understanding, and why I think a clockwork creator is more likely than the alternative.
We know that our universe is full of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The anti-protons, anti-neutrons, and positrons were all destroyed shortly after the Big Bang. Thus there was an imbalance. We also know that the laws of thermodynamics means that any spontaneous creation will contain a particle and it’s antiparticle, and so in a spontaneous creation neither one will outnumber the other. That suggests that either the laws of physics changed within the lifetime of our universe (the alternative hypothesis which I reject) or that something outside our universe created our universe.
You have failed to construct a true dichotomy, and I feel in no way compelled to grant that those are the only two options, particularly as “created” is a loaded word that implies a level of agency.
I disagree with the definition you’re using, which is where part of our misunderstanding is coming from. I don’t think created in any way implies a level of agency.
ETA. I agree that based on the rules of logic, that isn’t a true dichotomy. I’m just not sure what other alternatives are reasonable hypotheses. There’s certainly no evidence that the current universe is infinitely old, and lots of evidence to the contrary. The only other thing I can think of is that the laws of thermodynamics as we understand them are not just a little off, but entirely incorrect.
It implies a creator. A creator is generally assumed to be an agent. More to the point, if your “creator” lacks agency, then in what way, shape, or form is it a “god”? It’s like you’re defining god into existence through wordplay.
Sure, but a creator doesn’t have to be sentient or know what it’s doing. The Colorado river created the Grand Canyon, but it’s not sentient. The Colorado river doesn’t have agency in the sense that it acts of its own volition.
I treat the creation of our universe as evidence that something else outside our universe exists. Being that it’s outside our universe and this not amenable to scientific investigation, and is thus not only unknown but unknowable, I use a term which I think is well fitting for such a thing.
Fist, I don’t know how you can so easily reject the idea that there might have been some tweaking (not by any agent, mind you, but just by way of nature) of the laws of physics within our universe, during the period of its existence, particularly as we both seem to grant its really, really hard to have a conception of what the universe was or could have been like prior to plank time (or, again, if the idea of being “prior to” plank time is even coherent). So even if I were a true dichotomy (which, again, it isn’t) I don’t see how that gets us to our universe having been “created.”
Second, I can imagine at least one alternative, but even if I couldn’t imagine a single alternative to what you propose, the fact that you haven’t presented us with a true dichotomy (you haven’t logically excluded the existence of alternatives, whether or not we know what those alternatives could be), leads me to conclude I a, at least secure in maintaining my “I don’t know” stance, as opposed to doing what you have done, which is jumping right to the universe being a creation of…something (though, as of posting, it seems we still have no clue what that something is, or how it actually solves any of your problems with infinity?).
Now you really are just at the point of defining god as a metaphorical styrofoam cup. You’re using a label that obscures your meaning, which is kind of the opposite of how language is supposed to work (at least in this context, right? We are trying to understand each other aren’t we?).
We might as well just call gravity god, then, as it created the Earth. That, at least, we know.
I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t use a typical definition of god AKA the mythical being known as Yahweh that Jews, Christians, and Muslims ascribe to. I did grow up Catholic, and though I reject the metaphysics taught by the church, that doesn’t mean I don’t like some of the poetic language, including the word god. I just happen to define small g god as any entity capable of creating a universe, regardless of the form of that entity. It doesn’t have to be omnipotent or omniscient. It doesn’t have to be eternal (and I’m unsure of how anything can be, even a god). It doesn’t even have to have awareness of what it did by creating a universe. It certainly doesn’t have to show any interest in or even be aware of the existence of our very tiny part of the universe. It just has to have that creative capacity.
You are way, way beyond merely using god in the non-abrahamic, non-monotheistic, non-omni, non-eternal sense, to the point that I don’t even see how the label “god” should apply. Again, you might as well announce that your (or a) styrofoam cup is god, and then by that very narrow definition I suppose I would have to grant that “god” within your meaning exists.
But I refuse to adopt your meaning for general use, because I see no purpose in it, only obfuscation.
So you’ve defined god (one better than what Velocity has done for us, I suppose), but not in a way that I suspect the bulk of theists even would recognize as possessing god-like qualities. I’m not aware of any major religion (extant or historical) that would contemplate a god wholly lacking in agency.
It eludes me how my argument being simple to understand and required to be true by both all observable evidence and also the laws of math and logic should give me pause. There are no instantiated infinities. Something having previously existed for infinite time would be an actualized infinity. That can’t happen, so Gods (and universes) that have always existed also can’t happen. Simple.
And calling the Colorado river a god would be misuse of the word, wouldn’t it? The word god is loaded. It’s loaded so much that fundamentalist christians have a recorded historical tendency to try and prove something that’s far, far from being a god, calling it a god, and then calling it God, our biblical father in heaven. So when deists go around calling a mindless creative force “god” it smells like the same old bait and switch. You can’t blame literally everyone for being suspicious.
It’s not well-fitting for such a thing. “Physics” is a term well-fitting for such a thing, not “god”. (Unless one is doing a bait and switch.)
And there’s a problem with the claim that the existence of a universe implies a creator, and it’s the one that’s been pointed out before - if the universe requires a creator, then the creator requires a creator, and the creator’s creator requires a creator, and the creator’s creator’s creator requires a creator, and it’s turtles all the way down - except that would be an actualized infinity, and that can’t have happened. Which means that things don’t require a creator. Logically we can be quite certain that a creator is not required - something didn’t have one. And if I had to pick the kind of thing that feels like it might not have a creator, the Big Bang is pretty much exactly what I’d picture. El the storm god, not so much.
by Katie Mack, which has a nice section on ideas about how the universe started “before” the Big Bang. None of them involve deities. It’s not like cosmologists haven’t been thinking about this.
I’m sure we’ll never know for sure, but all these are more plausible than gods.
It’s kind of like abiogenesis. We’ll never know what really happened, but we do have plausible ideas, which can be tested, all of which make more sense than a god poofing life into existence.
You are clearly lucky enough to have never seen a flat earther video. They reject gravity (which doesn’t work on a flat earth) and say it is all difference in density. It’s all a plot by NASA, you see.
What are the minimum characteristics to make this a creator that could be called a “god”, even if a clockwork god, rather than a natural process?
If it has no agency, if it didn’t intend to create a universe, then how is any different from the universe popping up out of nothing?
We know that they are not correct, as they don’t explain some of our observations, for instance, why is there more matter than anti-matter. However, the amount of matter over anti-matter that is needed to observe what we do is a very, very small amount, so it doesn’t mean that our understanding is entirely incorrect, it just needs some adjustment, just as Einstein didn’t prove Newtonian mechanics to be entirely incorrect, they just needed an adjustment.
The difference in matter and anti-matter creation needed at the beginning of the universe is well within the error bars of the best measurements that we have made. Some operation creating slightly more matter than anti-matter is entirely within our current understanding, it’s just that we don’t yet know what that operation is yet. That’s why we still spend big bucks smashing particles together or freezing them to within miniscule fractions over absolute zero. We know our understanding of the universe is incomplete, and rather than simply throw up our hands and say, “God did it”, we actually try to figure out what really happened.
They believe in gravity in the pits of their stomachs, though. (Or, more accurately, in the depths of their brains.) Try shaking a ladder that they’re standing on.
Re-naming it “density”, if that’s what they’re doing, doesn’t change that.
The proof I want is another example of the Immaculate Conception. Supposedly happened about 2042 years ago. Never happened before, hasn’t happened since. I have had people try to tell me what happened, God’s seed, Mary was free of sin, etc. Then there is the question, if conceiving a child is considered a sin, why is that the only way every other human on this planet was brought forth in this manner? And what about Joseph? I’m sure he had questions on how Mary became pregnant without sex with him. Did he think she cheated on him?
Yes, the proto-particle would be a small g god. If the nothing is capable of causing a Big Bang, it isn’t a nothing. As to the whole issue of turtles all the way down, that’s part of what we don’t know, and are probably incapable of knowing. Maybe the laws of nature in one of those universes are sufficiently different than in our universe to provide a way of having a proverbial turtle at the bottom of the stack rather than a stack that goes on forever.