How can the universe form out of nothing?

who said it formed out of nothing?

File: image.png (186KB, 463x515px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 463x515px

>>8232238
We don't know. We have not yet constructed a model of the makeup of the Universe prior to Planck Time. Saying that at Tzero the Universe was nothing (or even a Cartesian point) is a guess.

Something within nothing?

(protip: language is broken and shit for trying to understand shit)

:)

File: blep blorp.jpg (7KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 480x360px

>>8232238

This question is constantly on this board.

>>8232238
Why do you assume that it was?

>>8232238
fallacy of composition dumbass
you, and everyone else that has the same dumb thoughts as you, uses the same faulty logic

>>8232274
Then whats your brilliant explanation for the OP's question, Einstein? Or are you going to stick with the ad hominem?

I think the better question to ask is how did intelligence come from non-intelligence? How do non-intelligent atoms come together to form cells with life which in turn forms sentient beings like us. This is one of the reasons I believe in an intelligent creator, one who created the universe. People like to counter that with "but who created the creator?",, space and time started with the big bang, so the beginning and end start with the big bang - before that there is no beginning, there is no end, so the creator transcends this. Basically, you can't apply programming rules to the programmer, it only applies to objects within the program.

>>8232290
the fuck are you talking about
OP's question is literally a logical fallacy; just because I call someone autistic doesn't mean my entire comment was just ad hominem dumbfuck

just because op thinks that every subset of the universe needs a cause, does not mean that the universe itself does. that's not to say there wasn't a cause, it's to say that OP's question is autistic and there is no reasonable answer

>>8232295
>OP's question is literally a logical fallacy
How so?

>>8232295
>does not mean that the universe itself does.
Pretty much this. There's no sound basis for asserting/assuming that the universe itself isnt an acausal event.
In fact I'd say its probably a logical necessity that any causal chain starts with an acausal event, or is part of a causal loop that is acausal

>>8232238
There was no nothing the sub quantum singularity may have always existed.

>>8232330
explain

>>8232238

There is no reason to believe that 'nothing' exists.

Nothing is likely an abstract concept that has no bearing on physical reality.

>>8232610
You're an abstract concept with no bearing on physical reality

File: Yesfgf.jpg (28KB, 394x391px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 394x391px

>>8232613

>>8232238

I like Krauss; he's a good physicist, but he's misleading people with the whole Universe from Nothing spiel.

He also doesn't clarify that the zero energy hypothesis is simply a hypothesis, competing against several others.

He must know this himself, so I can't condone what he's doing in relation to that.

Otherwise, he's getting plenty of people interested in physics and his lectures are decent if you omit the personal philosophy stuff mentioned above.

>>8232238
the projection is also a gate

G-d did it.

>>8232238
Why do you assume that "nothing" ever existed?
Why can't the universe perpetually be something, even if that something is a singularity?

>>8232302
Because atheists don't want to answer a question which makes them uncomfortable in their beliefs.

>>8232668

I'll answer the question.

File: ahyes.png (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

"Creation ex nihilo." We have dismissed that claim.

File: Roger-Penrose_1.jpg (102KB, 400x468px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 400x468px

>>8232238
Look up CCC, loop quantumn gravity, inflationary cosmology, and eternal inflation. It's fun reading. Not sure which one is right, if any. It's a mystery.

>>8232668
Explain what the logical fallacy is, not why people make it

>>8232238
It never formed out of nothing, it's simply a constant in transformed state of space dildos.

File: i-feel-it-240x180.jpg (9KB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 240x180px

When you talk about nothing you fill it with something.

>>8232646
Jew Detected.
Initiating Lechiam Protocol 101.

>>8232261
Well, thats an important fucking question.

No thing is not.
Nothing is not.

>>8232238
Uncaused (eternal)
Self-caused (came from nothing)
Caused by another

Those are your three choices.

>>8232627
Book appearances, sell books.

It's not complicated.

>>8232238
No, nothing is by definition nothing. I dont even understand where you are coming from. How does that even follow? What part about "nothing" is it, you dont understand?

>>8232610
Well, nothing doesnt exist

>>8232302
It is a non sequitur. It is pretty much gibberish

>>8232238

Better questions:

How can the universe form without a place (ie Space), an occasion ( ie Time), or even a means to determine the outcome of the creation event (ie Physics)?

Remember none of those things existed before the creation of the universe according to modern scientific cosmology.

>>8232238

>>8232250


Modern scientific cosmology.

Google: How does science explain the big bang?

if you doubt that statement.

>>8234951
>How can the universe form without a place (ie Space), an occasion ( ie Time)
Time and space are features of the universe. That question doesnt make sense

>according to modern scientific cosmology
Modern physics/cosmology doesnt make claims about anything before the big bang

>>8232238
Nothing can't create anything, otherwise it would be something. The universe doesn't seem to have been created from literally nothing, you've been done by hyperbole. We don't really know what there was before the universe, though we can speculate about it's state moments after its inception.

Why don't you become a physicist and trying to find out, senpai?

>>8234951
If you would improve your research skills beyond typing the literal question into google (just like my grandma), you would have maybe found out, that "modern scientific cosmology" doesnt say shit about the universe forming out of nothing. Going by the most confident assesments, it formed out of a singularity

>>8234899
It seems that uncaused and self-caused are dual sides of the same coin. Externally acausal, internally self-causal.

>>8232668
the theistic answer is just as unsatisfactory.

>>8232302
because it's based on the presupposition that nothing existed before the universe. We know nothing and in fact can not ever know anything about the conditions that existed preceding the big bang

>>8234965
Even if we do expand our understanding of reality beyond the confines of the observable universe, there's a turtles all the way down problem. At some point, reality, whatever it's maximum bounds, had to come out of nothing.

>>8232238
Even better yet

Why did the universe started expanding 13.7 billion years ago? What made the universe begin at that specific time?

Or

Why did time begin 13.7 billion years ago?

>>8235278
It had to start at some time and a lot of things had to happen before we were possible to exist and ask this question

>>8235278
presumably the expansion started when conditions made expansion possible
any more elaboration would require knowledge of the conditions that existed before the big bang which isn't possible

>>8235263
>Speculative at best

You're discussing the one of the weirdest, most psychedelic and abstract things possibly imaginable. I don't know how you can be so sure that "at some point, reality ... has to come out of nothing". Why? Define nothing. Define "reality" (or "maximum bounds"). What are you even talking about?

Like I said, speculative at best. With all due respect, you're talking out your arse.

>>8235302
My point IS incredibly abstract and of course it's speculative given the subject matter. What I mean is, if the universe exists in a larger system and conditions in that larger system are responsible for the origin of the universe, you just moved the goalposts to the origin of that larger system, and the origins of the system beyond that, and if something existed beyond that system that allowed that system to arise, you just move the goalposts again ad infinitum.

>>8232295
Dude, you need to smoke a bowl and chill out.

File: 1445404666832.jpg (85KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x598px

>>8232238
What if we're the result of a CERN-like experiment in the anti-matter universe? Much like positrons can be created from energy, we were created from anti-energy.

File: Gas2.png (44KB, 760x797px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 760x797px

>>8232668

You don't belong here.

File: 1TBiMaNh.jpg (102KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1024x768px

>>8235363
anti-cern... wait...

File: 1468641159251.gif (999KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x251px

>>8232238

>>8232294
good memes

P Branes

>>8235260
Not knowing something != something doesn't exist.

>>8232238
Wow, did you just stumble upon this?
What an amazing question! I cannot believe I did not think of it sooner!

File: Pan man.webm (1MB, 406x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 406x720px

>>8232238

There is nothing the human mind can not comprehend or explain except nothing.

If we would know the answer: Could we create another universe?

>>8232238
Better question is why you assume that nothing can't create something. The energy conservation law only applies to this universe as fas as we know.

>>8235696
good thing that isn't what I said

>>8232712
This.

/thread.

The thing is OP, the universe IS nothing. Matter and energy? They are literally illusions constructed by our minds, who knows what the true nature of reality is but it isn't the same picture we have in our heads.

>>8232238
I think the answer lies in Descartes' reason, "I think therefore I am."

We do exist, by whatever definition, if only for that I can type this.

That means ideas exist for we are just a collection of ideas and concepts.

So ideas and concepts exist, but these should be non-existent without us to think them, right? Nope, we are the product of ideas and concepts--which do exist.

Thus ideas and concepts existed before us.

Then consider every formulation from any idea or concept must exist somehow--what we may call a parallel universe.

Back to Descartes, a more abstract way to say it is things do because things are.

File: descartes quote.jpg (295KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1920x1080px

>>8236034

>>8232238
You can't even talk about a causal relation because there isn't a point in time beyond the beginning for an event to occur that could be placed "before" it.

>>8232294
very, very complex chemistry that became more intricate over billions of years

Spacetime is infinite but with boundaries.
Future already exist.
If you can't understand this, there is no hope.

>>8232627
please, leave pop scientists out of this thread
and the internet in general

File: The Genesis in Modern English.png (345KB, 443x1347px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 443x1347px

>>8232238
>How can the universe form out of nothing

Because of the Word.

>In the beginning was the Word,
>> and the Word was with God,
>> and the Word was God.
>He was in the beginning with God.
>All things came to be through him,
>> and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be through him was life,
>> and this life was the light of the human race;
>the light shines in the darkness,
>> and the darkness has not overcome it.

Nothing's something, and always will be, m8

>>8236109
Genesis 6:3 Genesis 11

Contradictions, starting, in the first book

>>8236116
*tips fedora*

It seems that whatever the 'answer' is would be necessarily incomprehensible to our minds.

Whatever answer might exist to the question "why does our universe exist?" would either take the form of "because this mechanism precedes it" or "it is not meaningful to ask why in this case", and the reason for existence of whatever may be "beyond" our universe (simulation, multiverse, etc) would be again subject to taking one of those two forms.

>>8236116
contradictions, pro mode

http://bibviz.com/

>>8236166
good point.

File: 1458519644127.jpg (237KB, 1280x886px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1280x886px

>>8232238
Reality is God's dream.

File: 1197847407302.jpg (100KB, 742x519px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 742x519px

>>8236270
>people post that link unironically

>>8236411
*tips fedora*

>>8236411
whats wrong with it?

>>8236413
you dont seem to understand that meme

Universe came out of the corpse of God.

File: 1418722607429.jpg (67KB, 380x400px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 380x400px

>>8236431
>whats wrong with it?

It's laughable bullshit. The "contradictions" are shit like "call no man father" hyperbole being taken literally and Exodus' law banning incest somehow contradicting earlier Genesis' incest.

New atheists will latch on to anything that proposes to debunk religion without even fact checking it.

>>8237244
>Exodus' law banning incest somehow contradicting earlier Genesis' incest

could you explain really briefly whats wrong with considering this a contradiction?

Almighty God did it OP
this is literally the only answer to this question

>>8236431
shit taken out of context and/or misinterpreted on purpose

A conscious reality can not exist without a reality to exist in

So I'm not ruling out Boltzmann Brains and alterior motives.

0 doesn't exist, only 1. The universe has always been 1.

>>8232238
All possibility exists, everything comes from that.

File: 12592338_10204232317883040_1768300452042996808_n.jpg (42KB, 716x535px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 716x535px

>>8236444
Trips don't lie.

>>8232295
how can you tie your shoes in the morning?

>>8232302
Moot

>>8232238
Moot

>>8232260
For some reason people are uncomfortable with the perfectly reasonable answer of, "we aren't sure yet".

>>8237274
>Chemical weapons were used in WWI but they are banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Contradiction!!
>Americans drank alcohol before Prohibition. Contradiction!!
>Americans drink alcohol after Prohibition. Contradiction!!

Clearly history doesn't exist