The Believer

I appreciate your honest proposition. I don't know what "everything else" is but whatever I have presented in my thread is not baseless speculation. It is based on logic. It is based on what logic allows. It is based on what is possible and what has been observed to be possible practically and logically.

But unfortunately for you, it has already happened before you could think. I guess it has the right to be nonsensical differentiation? Well I am not quite sure about that, but is there any chance that you are talking about calculas?

my assertion is not a mere assertion. It's a conclusion derived from logical reasoning. And my inability to grasp any other possibility is not law. My ability or inability to grasp other possibility depends upon what logic allows. Ofcourse the idea that the universe came from something we do not know is not flawed logic. It means we do not know what that "something" is. But when we say that the universe came from "something", a question will ultimately arise as where that "something" come from?. The only possible answer will be that "something" came from "something else". So in this way, we can keep on going back farther into the past and never get the "ultimate something" which is the first cause of all other things. It does not matter whether we are able or unable to reach that point of time in past where we can get that "ultimate something". What matters is what logic allows. Logic allows only two possibilities: 1. either there was a "ultimate something" or the first cause which was uncaused or 2. there was never a first cause. The second possibility that "there was never a first cause" should be rejected because logicaly if there was never a first cause then the universe should not exist. So we only have the first possibilty that there was a "first cause which was uncaused". Now if there was a first cause which was uncaused then again we will ask where that "first uncaused cause" come from? We can not say that it came from something else because nothig existed before it as it is the first uncaused cause. So we can have only two possibilities: 1. Either that "uncaused cause" came from absolute nothing, or 2. that "uncaused cause" always existed or had no beginning. Both the possibilities are flawed logic because logically and practically nothing can come from absolute nothing and nothing can exist and continue to exist if it was never started or never had a beginning. So finally, ultimately the idea that the universe came from something else ends up being a flawed logic.

Well what is there to establish? I have already argued with logic why those are the only two possibilities. Logic will allow only these two possibilities. When I argue that those are the only possibilities, it's other people's job to provide other possibilities if they exist and prove my argument wrong. Firstly, I have not assigned my points arbitrarily. I have derived my points from what logic allows. And secondly, it's not an argument from incredulity, because the reason why I can not imagine how there could be any other choices is that logic doesn't allow me to imagine any other choices. And its not only me who can't imagine the possibility of any other choices, in fact I would like to claim that every human being including you can not imagine any other choices because logic will not allow you to think of any other possibilities. And the hard truth is that, you can not refute the possibilities that I have presented. If you want to refute them then you have to prove them wrong and illogical using logic. And also when I argue that there can not exist any other possibilities, my argument will remain true unless and until someone prove my arguments wrong by showing other possibilities. So if you think there can exist any other possibilities than those given by me then you have to show them. if you can not then my argument will remain true and undisputed.

a false dichotomy? How is it a false dichotomy? could you please elaborate and prove your point? And how does my argument fall under the category of "straw man"? Can you prove your point or are you simply making a false accusation?

Well why wouldn't I think in straight linear fashion? I have a reason to think that way because that is how things are and that is how things are being observed from the macroscopic down to the microscopic level. Every event occurs in a linear fashion, from the past to the present to the future, from the beginning to the end. And the current understanding of the creation of the universe and its evolution is nothing but a linear event. And if the conservation of energy doesn't allow it to have a suddden start then it is absolutely clear that it should not have existed. why and how can it exist or evolve to the current state if it was not started? But actually it exists and we are here, and I feel then there must be something that the law of conservation of energy fails to explain. No matter what, you can only have two options, either it was created or it was not. But Since you agree that it was not created according to conservation of energy, then you have to explain if it was not created or started then why and how does it exist? If you do not start the engine of your car, can it take you anywhere? well If you believe in observable, demonstrable and testable and possible reality of nature then I believe that with a deeper thought you will find them illogical. I believe logic is a way of presenting certain possible and observable conditions that enables a human mind to comprehend the ultimate reality of nature. Even if "something else" is not defined, you can never get rid of the ultimate question that will arise as where from that "something else" come? will you then say that "something else" came from another "something else" ? This way you are doing no solution to the problem here. All you are doing is going back farther and farther into the past and becoming a witness of infinite number of "cause and effect" events. Let us suppose you have reached the most distant and ultimate point of time in the past and you find the "ultimate something" that gave birth to all the other latter "something else" that gave birth to our current universe. Now at this point you can not ask where from this "ultimate something" come from because you have reached the beginning of the time and there was no prior cause to that "ultimate something". So the only options that you can have is to either believe that it came from "absolute nothing" or it "always existed". But as I have said in my earlier arguments, both these options are impossible and illogical or in other words, logic fails at this ultimate point. So all I am saying is either you believe in magic or a failing logic. The choice is yours.

I have already made it clear in my earlier arguments with stringJunky why the logic of "some existing without a beginning" is flawed. The logic is very simple. If something is not created, not started or has not began then it can not or should not exist. The question or probability of its existence does not arise at all if it has not been started or created in the first place. I want to ask the same question to you that I had asked stringJunky. Suppose if a engineer do not begin or start the construction of a building then will you expect it to be existing? Or what if the same engineer claims that this building had no beginning or in other words, it was un created or unconstructed, but yet it exists. Then would you agree with him?

Well, it goes against the ability of a human mind to comprehend such a concept because it goes against logic.

I just want to ask you a very simple question here. Suppose if a engineer do not begin or start the construction of a building then will you expect it to be existing? Or what if the same engineer claims that this building had no beginning or in other words, it was un created, but yet it exists. Then would you agree with him? I believe your answer will be a "NO". My point is how can something which had no beginning or was un created, unstarted or unborn can exist? This goes against logic.

Well it is the same thing as saying "it always existed" which ultimately means it had no beginning. So according to your definition, no matter how far we go back in the past we can always find "it" existing but we can never find it being created which clearly implies that it had no beginning. So keeping your given definition by your side, you can agree with only one of the two possibilities. Either you agree that it had a beginning or you agree that it had no beginning. If you agree that it had a beginning then you are contradicting your own definition, because if it had a beginning then definitely there was a time in the past that didn't exist. And if you agree that it had no beginning then you are basically agreeing with me on my earlier comment where I said the logic of "it always existed" is flawed. When I ask someone else what they mean, I don't actually refute the probable meaning that i have myself given. I just keep that meaning open to be criticised or rejected by others as well as myself if someone finds a fault in my given meaning. And that is the reason why I used the adjective "probably" so that it can be clear to others that I am willing to accept any other better meaning than the one given my me. And of course that meaning has to be logical and reasonable. well, good point. My motivation is very simple. My motivation can be compared to that of a hungry man who desires to eat food. He goes searching for the food in his kitchen.He finds a small piece of bread but he doesn't eat it yet because he wants something bigger.So he continues his search for a bigger food but also at the same time he keeps that small piece of bread with him. Because he knows, in case he fails to find any other food, that bread can save his life. To be honest, at this point of time, I fail to believe in anything. I am trying my best to believe in at least something. But when I try to believe using logic or reasoning, everything seems to be falling apart and making no sense.

If one says that the universe always existed, then he probably means it had no beginning. If it had no beginning it means it was unborn or uncreated. But if it was unborn or uncreated then how come it exists now? It is clearly contradictory and fails here. Is there any other meaning of the phrase "always existed"? What do you exactly mean when you say or any one says "it always existed"? Can you define this phrase?

if you do not believe that we can get something from nothing then I see no reason or logic for you to say that you believe that we can get something from what appears to be nothing. what appears to be nothing may not be actually the nothing that we all know and understand. Nothing simply means no-thing or the non existence of anything.The term "nothing" is not complex at all and should not be confusing to anyone as far as i understand. The attempt to define something should not be illogical because of our limited understanding. But as I have pointed out earlier in the beginning of my post, when we attempt to understand or define the "cause" of the universe, unfortunately for us, logic and reasoning fails explicitly. It is sad but the bitter truth that, with logic if we go deeper and attempt to define the cause of the universe, we will definitely fail because logic will betray us. The adjective "absolute" is not necessarily used for defining something of its quantitative measure. The word "absolute" is not restricted to only one meaning. It has several meanings. If we say a girl is "hot", it will not necessarily mean that her body temperature is very high. It could mean she is attractive. Likewise when I used the word absolute with nothing, I meant it is undoubted, uncontested, unequivocal, clear, in its true sense.So keeping these meanings in view, i used the adjective absolute with the word "nothing". And whether absolute or not, nothing simply and explicitly means the non existence of anything. And I don't understand how can this be misleading to anyone. Well good point, but my intent was philosophical.

Well, The two possibilities that you gave are : 1 . ekpyrotic model, about which when asked you said, " Actually the idea is that the brane collisions are cyclic over vast amounts of time embedded in a multidimensional bulk space." 2. The 4D star collapsing model, about which yoy said, "The 4D star collapsing into a black hole tearing a hole in space time resulting in another universe is interesting to me.". Those are just the model of the origin of the universe. So I would like to ask you how does these two possibilities differ from my second possibility where I said "it came from something else"? Whether the universe came from brane collisions or from the 4d star collapsing, it simply denotes that it came from "something else". which is exactly the same as my second possibility of "it coming from something else". So my logic that the possibility of "it coming from something else" is absurd because we can never reach the ultimate point this way. This logic also applies to to those two models that you gave. Because the question will eventually arise as "where from the "branes" and the "4d star come from?". you would probably say it came from "something else". So those two possibilities that you gave are exactly the same as my second possibility. they are not all different. Well that's not at all true. I am very much open minded and would love to accept if there exists any other possibilities which are different than mine. I've clearly shown you above how your given possibilities are exactly the same as mine. They are not different. A television can either be switched on or off, there can never be any third possible mode. Likewise as I had argued earlier, for the existence of something, you can only have three possibilities : it came from absolute nothing, it came from some thing else, or it was eternal meaning it always existed. If you can think of any other possibilities than these three then I would appreciate it very much and accept it.

Could you please point out which part of my logic is flawed? I would appreciate it very much. But for me, I fail to see the possibility of anymore possibilities. I doubt if anyone can think of any other possibilities than those three given my me. Well let's hope one day we will get a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe. That would the great. I wish I get the explanation before I die.

Well actually to be frank, I accept that you or anybody here don't know the answer. And by the way, it was only the first time that I had asked that question to swansont. I didn't ask that same question to you or anybody else to whom I had already asked. swansont was new in the scene so I had to ask him too. I guess there is no harm asking the same question to different peoples in the hope of getting the answer. To be honest with you, I don't actually know where it came from. If I had known I wouldn't have asked you or any one else here. I just have no clue at all, I am just a seeker of truth. still from my point of view, all I would like to say is that, there can always be only three absurd possibilities, either it came from absolute nothing, which is ridiculously absurd because it sounds like fairy tale magic, or it came from "something else" which is absurd too because it leads nowhere as we can never reach the ultimate point that way; or it was "always there" meaning it had no beginning, meaning if it had no beginning then it was unborn, but if it was unborn then how come it exists. which means this is also absurd. So all I wanna say is that I don't know really.Finally I would like to say that, either believe in a fairy tale magic or a flawed logic. We've got only these two choices. That's what I believe. cheers

Ofcourse we have the right to focus on the questions that we find most interesting because that would be very reasonable to do so. The reason why a nuclear physicist deals with the questions and problems regarding the field of nuclear physics is because he finds it interesting. I am sure he doesn't practice in that field at gun point against his own will. Well I do not expect every one in this world to find my question interesting and spend time on it. We all are different so we all have different tastes and interests. Those who do not want to spend time considering my question here are free no to do so. I did not force anyone here to give answers to my questions. It's their free choice and free will whether they want to consider my question or not. My question was meant for those who were interested in answering it. Well to be honest, I have no clue at all. All I know there is this energy in this universe and I just want to know where this energy came from in the beginning. Out of nothing, out of something or was always there.? I don't really know what this "negative gravitational potential energy" means. But I would like to ask you regarding that, does the existence of this negative gravitational potential energy mean that the universe came out of absolute nothing?

If it was always here and you are suggesting that I don't need to ask that question!? Seriously, do you consider that a scientific, rational and a logical statement? Asking questions has always been a job of scientists, philosophers and seekers of ultimate truth and reality. I do not understand how can a scientific person not ask the most basic question regarding the existence of something. It's the most basic thing that a rational person or a scientist can do. How can a logical person be contented by accepting the things the way they are without logic and reason and proper scientific investigation? So based on the conservation of energy you are saying that it had to always have existed. So what do you exactly mean when you say it had always existed? Do you mean it had no beginning? If it had no beginning then do you imply that it was unborn or un-created? But if it was unborn or uncreated then how is it possible that it exists? It contradicts. Things can either be created or un-created, born or unborn, exist or don't exist. There can always be only two possibilities. If according to conservation of energy if it was never created then the question is how is it possible that it exists? Can you explain to me scientifically what exactly do you mean by the statement "it always existed"? Was it created or uncreated?

Ofcourse if there was nothing I would not be here asking the questions. That is is very obvious and I do not deny that. The universe already exists.But that answer is totaly irrelevant to my question. I did not argue that there should have been "nothing". I asked what is it that causes "something" to exist rather than "nothing". In the beginning of my thread I asked whether that cause came magically from nothing or always existed?. If your children ask you "father how were we born in this world?" then would you reply, " children if you were not born then you would not be here asking me that question". That would be an irrelevant reply because that does not address the "how" of the question. The question is not about the unlikelihood of the universe but about the cause of its existence. When I asked "why there is something rather than nothing" I did not favour for "nothing". I meant what makes "something" possible that cancels out "nothing". When your house is on fire, you don't just accept the way it is. Unless you believe in magic, you enquire into the cause of the fire. I don't understand how can that be the most basic answer to my most basic question. I did not ask for the reason of the unlikelihood of the universe. Because as I argued earlier with michel123456 that we no need no explanation for the non existence of something but we need explanation for the existence of something. Ofcourse we are already here and that is where the question arises. why and how?

The objective of the metaphor was to point out the question of the existence of any content in a container. If the container is empty then I see no reason for the recquirement of any explanation for the non-existence of any content in a container. What I meant is that we do not ask the reason for the non existence of something. Only when something exists, we ask why and how does it exist? Have you ever encountered statements like "why is there no stone in my pocket?" or " How can there be no monkey in your backyard?" without any conditions? The question is not what leans on which side. The question is how does this universe and the things in it exist? why and how is it possible for something to exist.?Offcourse we have the universe with galaxies, stars, atoms, planets, living organisms etc and we observe it. But that's not the end of the story. It's a basic urge to ask why and how does these things exists? It's a very basic and fundamental question any untrained person can ask or should ask. We can't just be contended with the fact that this universe and things in it simply exist, we are compelled to ask by logic and common sense, why and how. Well I know, as you have mentioned earlier that you do not know. Well I am happy with your honest answer. Perhaps we will never know. Thank you.

This is the first time in my life that i am knowing from someone that "why" is not a scientific question and is a philosophical question. I find this strange. Anyway if "why" is not a scientific question then do you mean to say it is wrong to ask a scientist, "why does an apple from a tree fall down towards earth and not goes up in the sky? I believe every great scientific discoveries were fueled by philosophical ideas and questions. Science can not ever get rid of philosophy as philosophy is nothing but the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. When newton saw the apple falling I believe probably the first question that came to his mind was "why does it fall down?". The question "how does it fall down" might have come latter to his mind. Anyway, for the sake of the argument, even if "why" is not a scientific question then I can easily rephrase my question as "HOW CAN THERE BE SOMETHING RATHER THAN ABSOLUTE NOTHING?" so now I am getting rid of "why" here and ask with a "how" again, "How is nothing impossible and how is it unstable?" When we find a glass in our kitchen is empty, we do not ask "why and how is it empty?". why shouldn't it be? But when we find the glass filled with water, we can ask "who filled it, why and how?" The empty glass need no explaination but the filled glass needs explaination.

By nothing, I mean absolute nothing, no air, no energy, no fundamental particles of matter etc. When you say that you doubt that nothing actualy exists, that doubt makes no sense. Because "nothing" is not "something". So the question or doubt of "nothing" existing or not existing does not arise. When our hand is empty we do not ask why is it empty.But when we are holding a pen or a book, we ask different questions like why are we holding it? where from we got it? etc. SO when I say "nothing" exists I do not mean "nothing" is "something" that exists. I simply mean there is no thing or in other words there is not anything. It is as simple as that. There should not be any doubt about "nothing" and we should not make it complex. Well things can indeed exist no doubt about that. But your question "how could no thing exist"? does not make any sense. No thing means there is no thing. No matter, no energy, no light, no fundamental particles etc. So the question how could no thing exist does not make sense because "no thing" is not anything or something. It is as simple as that. If you find an empty box lying on the street you wouldn't ask why is the box empty. why shouldn't it be? By default the box has to be empty.Nothingness or emptiness is the default state. Maybe Aether is real and necessary.To build a house we need building materials, to make tea we need tea leaves. The question is not why aether is necessary but the real question is why does aether exist? We need no explaination for nothingness or emptiness because that's the default. But when something exists or happens, we ask why? Once again, your doubt that ""nothing" actually exists" makes no sense because "nothing" is not anything or something that should exist. When you say that it is outside of time and space then do you mean to say that space is some "thing" or some area with boundaries around it? Do you mean to say that this universe had a boundary and "something" that gave birth to this universe was outside of that boundary? Another question follows, even if that "something" is outside of time and space, still there has to be a reason why that "something" exists. I do not understand how can "something" always existing eternally be such an easy concept to grasp. So the big question still remains unanswered, whether eternal or not, WHY THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING, WHY NOT ABSOLUTE NOTHING?

But that still doesn't explain why we have this energy or energy fields in the universe? As i mentioned earlier, the universe could be an empty space of absolute nothingness. But it is not. We have this energy and yet no one can explain why it exists. We can't just only accept that matter can spontaneously form from energy fields. We must also ask where from that energy field come from?

Yes What can happen usually does. Absolutely agree with that. But I would like to add that it happens with a pre cause.

So in the realm of quantum do you mean to imply that something can come out of absolute nothing?

if there was no time before big bang then do mean to say that the big bang happened without any cause? If i ignore time pre big bang then do imply that big bang happened without a cause? How can an event take place without a cause? Nothing happens without a reason or cause. Even if u say time started after big bang you still can't explain the cause of og big bang. Something just can not explode for no reason without any cause. The non existence of time before big bang does not explain the cause of big bang. Every event must have a cause. Well if the law of conservation of energy dictates that it always existed the problem of a beginning indeed goes away without a doubt. But thats not the end of the problem. Why does it have to exist? Why there has to be this energy in the universe? Why not an empty space of absolute nothingness? How can the problem of a beginning go away by saying that it always existed. Now you have to explain logically why is there this eternal energy? WIthout any reason? no cause at all? There could be absolute nothingness but there is this energy. You can't just get away by simply saying that it just simply always existed. The question is why? Any logical person would ask that question.