Was the creation of the Universe a supernatural act?

[plumjam]

The 'natural' - at least in my experience - is rather a nebulous concept, depending largely on particular states of knowledge through time.

Yet all definitions of 'natural' that I have seen have sought to be based on space, time, energy, matter, physical law and other such fundamental familiar concepts.

If, as I believe the physicists say, these things came into being at the beginning of the Universe, wouldn't that rule out the extra-universal state from being natural, and thus make a movement from the extra-universal to the universal a supernatural act?

Even a miracle?

If this is the case it means that all your natural explanations are ultimately founded upon the supernatural.

(Don't worry. I'm not expecting many yeses)

[arthwollipot]

Not quite. As I understand it, since the universe is self-caused, there doesn't need to be anything "extra-universal" in order to cause it.

But I'm not an expert on the first 1/1000000000th of a second that cosmologists still don't know about.

[athon]

The 'natural' - at least in my experience - is rather a nebulous concept, depending largely on particular states of knowledge through time.

Yet all definitions of 'natural' that I have seen have sought to be based on space, time, energy, matter, physical law and other such fundamental familiar concepts.

Incorrect. All definitions are based on laws that define those things.

If, as I believe the physicists say, these things came into being at the beginning of the Universe, wouldn't that rule out the extra-universal state from being natural, and thus make a movement from the extra-universal to the universal a supernatural act?

Since your premise is flawed, the conclusion is as well. Laws didn't seem to come into being at the beginning of the universe. You can ask where they came from, or if ever there was a context where they didn't exist, and yet there is absolutely no way currently to address that.

Athon

[Foster Zygote]

Was the universe created?

[plumjam]

Not quite. As I understand it, since the universe is self-caused, there doesn't need to be anything "extra-universal" in order to cause it.
So the Universe is self-caused. That is knowledge or belief?

But I'm not an expert on the first 1/1000000000th of a second that cosmologists still don't know about.
Belief then.

Incorrect. All definitions are based on laws that define those things.
Did these laws exist extra-Universally and therefore somehow create it?
If so, how is that possible, seeing as the physicists say laws only began with the Universe's own temporal inception?



Since your premise is flawed, the conclusion is as well. Laws didn't seem to come into being at the beginning of the universe. You can ask where they came from, or if ever there was a context where they didn't exist, and yet there is absolutely no way currently to address that.

Athon
So a whole array of different laws somehow managed to spring into existence at precisely the same point as all the matter, energy, space, time etc.. on which these laws worked with mathematically elegant and intelligible precision.
Quite some coincidence.

[truethat]

Any discussion about the origins of life or the Universe is rather silly IMHO because the only real answer is "we don't know." Since I tend to apply my skeptism regarding any sort of answer other than that pretty evenly I tend to piss off God theorists and Scientists pretty evenly as well.

The only answer is, "We don't know" discussing it is like writing fan fiction.

[athon]

Did these laws exist prior to the Universe and therefore somehow create it?
If so, how is that possible, seeing as the physicists say time only began with the Universe's own temporal inception?

Honestly? *shrug* Not something that we are able to answer. We can make guesses based on concepts of multiple universes, colliding dimensions etc. They all make sense mathematically (using what little we know and making some deductions), but we simply don't have access to observations that could confirm any of it.

So, it's in the 'too hard' basket for now.

So a whole array of different laws somehow managed to spring into existence at precisely the same point as all the matter, energy, space, time etc.. on which these laws worked with mathematically elegant and intelligible precision.
Quite some coincidence.

Never said that. I said we currently have no way of doing more than offering some logical deductions. However, they're barely even educated guesses.

In any case, you're always left with the same questions. It's possible that the laws always existed. If you suggest supernatural causes, you're still left with even bigger questions to answer. Best have no answer at all until you've got some reason to presume it.

Athon

[plumjam]

Honestly? *shrug* Not something that we are able to answer. We can make guesses based on concepts of multiple universes, colliding dimensions etc. They all make sense mathematically (using what little we know and making some deductions), but we simply don't have access to observations that could confirm any of it.

So, it's in the 'too hard' basket for now.

Not terribly hard, in my opinion.
You just make the obvious and reasonable inference that there's a form of existence outside of what we refer to as the natural. An existence that is not conditioned by time, space, matter, energy or laws.
Not being conditioned by laws means that existence is above laws, and due to the fact that laws have come into being down on this natural realm, it would be reasonable to assume that this extra-natural (supernatural) existence can create laws and all the rest of it.

It is not knowledge; it's rational inference from the facts.
(Though some people do claim knowledge of this)

If it could be shown that the Universe had no beginning then such inferences would be on a very sticky wicket, but that's currently not the state of knowledge.



Never said that. I said we currently have no way of doing more than offering some logical deductions. However, they're barely even educated guesses.

In any case, you're always left with the same questions. It's possible that the laws always existed. If you suggest supernatural causes, you're still left with even bigger questions to answer.
I'm not sure the questioning process could apply to an existence outside of space time energy etc... The questioning process is a temporal beast.

Best have no answer at all until you've got some reason to presume it.

Best to reason to what seems the most plausible position. Assuming the Universe came into existence at some point, and its highly intricate nature, it's reasonable to assume there is some extra-universal existence.
To assume there's no extra-universal existence, taking that as a default position, seems unjustifiable in comparison.

[rocketdodger]

I think a more interesting question is whether or not we can know of such a thing.

All of our thought is based upon the laws of our universe -- we grew up here, and so we think in terms of those laws.

If you remove the laws, what is left? How can we conceive of a thing that has no method of conception?

[athon]

Not terribly hard, in my opinion.
You just make the obvious and reasonable inference that there's a form of existence outside of what we refer to as the natural. An existence that is not conditioned by time, space, matter, energy or laws.

It's your assertion that this is obvious and reasonable. It's not obvious to me at all (given we have no observations that demand a suspension of the laws), and it's not reasonable (at least, it's not logical).

Not being conditioned by laws means that existence is above laws, and due to the fact that laws have come into being down on this natural realm, it would be reasonable to assume that this extra-natural (supernatural) existence can create laws and all the rest of it.

Not at all. You've just shifted it to another concept, one that simply now has no defining features. It's answered nothing and instead presumes that there is some state that operates under no rules itself.

It is not knowledge; it's rational inference from the facts.
(Though some people do claim knowledge of this)

How do you define knowledge if you can exclude inferences from facts? Most of our knowledge comes from application of logic on facts to infer something accept as useful.

If it could be shown that the Universe had no beginning then such inferences would be on a very sticky wicket, but that's currently not the state of knowledge.

Yet you would have to do exactly the same thing with a supernatural origin. Funny that.

Best to reason to what seems the most plausible position. Assuming the Universe came into existence at some point, and its highly intricate nature, it's reasonable to assume there is some extra-universal existence.
To assume there's no extra-universal existence, taking that as a default position, seems unjustifiable in comparison.

So there is allowed to be an external system which has no governing rules and is eternal, and this is 'reasonable' to you? Yeah, good luck with that. You're stretching the definition of reason to simply refer to what you're comfortable with. It certainly isn't logical.

Athon

[plumjam]

I think a more interesting question is whether or not we can know of such a thing.

All of our thought is based upon the laws of our universe -- we grew up here, and so we think in terms of those laws.

If you remove the laws, what is left? How can we conceive of a thing that has no method of conception?

Some good points.
If you look through the literature of mysticism (mysticism in its real meaning) there is an experience that defies adequate conception, but is often labeled as infinity, timelessness, the void, the emptiness, the unqualified, the unconditioned, unity...etc..
So it's an experience that defies natural spatio-temporal conception.. defies 'thingness'.
Which is exactly what you would expect from a "knowing" of the sort of reality we're discussing.

[truethat]

I have to thank you, plumjam because you've given me a phrase now that sums up how I really feel about this sort of discussion. And that is God fan fiction. It's like "we don't know that part of Harry Potter, so lets just make up what Hermione and Ron said to each other after Harry fell asleep!" It says more about the writer than it does about the truth.

We don't know. Anyone creating an answer because they can't deal with not knowing is just writing fan fiction, either God fan fiction or Science fan fiction. Either way it's the same.

[six7s]

If this is the case it means that all your natural explanations are ultimately founded upon the supernatural.Huh?

How, in cases where we don't understand something, is there any sane reason to say that 'woo did it'?

:confused:

[plumjam]

It's your assertion that this is obvious and reasonable. It's not obvious to me at all (given we have no observations that demand a suspension of the laws), and it's not reasonable (at least, it's not logical).
Yet we supposedly have all the evidence for the big bang, at the inception of which time space energy and the laws apparently sprang into existence. So outside of the big bang process would those laws exist? You seemed to imply earlier that they would. I wonder how they would exist in that way.


Not at all. You've just shifted it to another concept, one that simply now has no defining features. It's answered nothing and instead presumes that there is some state that operates under no rules itself.Well surely the primary reality would have to have no defining features because if it did so it wouldn't be the primary reality (yeah, I know primary and reality are defining features, but we need a way to refer to it), and if the primary reality operated subject to rules then the rules would be the primary reality.



How do you define knowledge if you can exclude inferences from facts? Most of our knowledge comes from application of logic on facts to infer something accept as useful.

It's not knowledge in the everyday sense; it's a best guess, but a best guess that points to that which exists outside of the natural universe. Other best guesses are more easily investigable.

Yet you would have to do exactly the same thing with a supernatural origin. Funny that.
Could you be a bit clearer?



So there is allowed to be an external system which has no governing rules and is eternal, and this is 'reasonable' to you?
Entirely reasonable. Everywhere else we look we see opposites.. big / small, hot / cold, young / old... why not temporal / atemporal, spatial / non-spatial, regulated / free?

Yeah, good luck with that. You're stretching the definition of reason to simply refer to what you're comfortable with. It certainly isn't logical.
As we have not agreed on premises, 'logical' has nothing to do with it. As ever, JREFers mistakenly use 'logic' as a rallying mantra.

[Andrew Wiggin]

No.

[KingMerv00]

But I'm not an expert on the first 1/1000000000th of a second that cosmologists still don't know about.

Belief then.

No. It is "I don't know."

If I asked you what my favorite food is, the only honest response you can give is "I don't know".

Same thing with the first moments of the universe. No one has enough information to make any good conclusions.

[arthwollipot]

So the Universe is self-caused. That is knowledge or belief?


Belief then.And therefore dismissable without further thought. I believe that the universe is self-caused because that appears to be supported by the research on the subject, and because of the utter lack of evidence for any other hypothesis.

Yet we supposedly have all the evidence for the big bang, at the inception of which time space energy and the laws apparently sprang into existence. So outside of the big bang process would those laws exist? You seemed to imply earlier that they would. I wonder how they would exist in that way.What you're asking here is whether the universe has to have the laws that it has. Could a universe exist that has different laws, or no laws at all?

If the laws are an integral part of the structure of the universe, as some theorists have suggested, then no, you don't need to have anything outside of the big bang process. The bang created the universe, with the laws that are essential to the universe's existence.

And even if you do believe that other kinds of universes can exist, it still doesn't mean that the laws of this universe were imposed from outside the universe. It just means that there is more than one kind of big bang, each of which creates a different kind of universe.

As with much of cosmology, the answer is that we don't know. Yet. Perhaps we'll never know. But if cosmologists do manage to work it all out, and determine exactly WHY the big bang happened, what would that do to religion?

[athon]

So outside of the big bang process would those laws exist? You seemed to imply earlier that they would. I wonder how they would exist in that way.

I'd imagine so. And yes, I also wonder how they would exist in that way. Good question.

The difference is, I make no presumptions about the answer. I can honestly leave it at 'I haven't the foggiest'.

Could you be a bit clearer?

The point is pointing out a supernatural origin would solve nothing. If it's to solve the uncomfortable notion of the universe being eternal, a supernatural origin would be no different. If it's because you cannot imagine a universe springing ex nihilo, again, a supernatural origin would suffer the same problem.

Either way, we don't know anything about what caused an event where our understanding of those laws that govern the universe seem to fail. Stating it becomes supernatural doesn't offer anything useful at all. You're still left explaining the nature of that event.

Entirely reasonable. Everywhere else we look we see opposites.. big / small, hot / cold, young / old... why not temporal / atemporal, spatial / non-spatial, regulated / free?

Come on PJ, you're smarter than that. I know you are. I won't even insult you by pointing out the fallacy you're committing there. I'll put this down to some brain fart or something. ;)

As we have not agreed on premises, 'logical' has nothing to do with it. As ever, JREFers mistakenly use 'logic' as a rallying mantra.

Logic is useful to create a level playing field. Otherwise we're left only with our gut reactions. Which is fine, but it sort of prevents any discussion. We might as well close this thread with you saying 'I believe in supernatural stuff' and the rest of us saying 'Nu-huh, I don't believe it'.

Not really as entertaining, though.

Athon

[Soapy Sam]

pj this is a definition question.
As you say, we don't know what caused the universe to exist, though we have some credible leads.
We don't know if terms like "outside" or "before" even make sense in this context. All the assumptions about physical law and reality inherent in our language may be invalid in such a discussion.

So if you want to call it "supernatural", that's fine.

Or " banana".

I'm more a banana person, myself.

[six7s]

pj this is a definition question.
As you say, we don't know what caused the universe to exist, though we have some credible leads.
We don't know if terms like "outside" or "before" even make sense in this context. All the assumptions about physical law and reality inherent in our language may be invalid in such a discussion.

So if you want to call it "supernatural", that's fine.

Or " banana".

I'm more a banana person, myself.But... but... but bananananas are TEH supernatural!!11!!Of90cKxSeuw

[Skeptic Ginger]

So the Universe is self-caused. That is knowledge or belief?This is nothing but a semantics quibble. What you should be asking is was the initiation of the Big Bang spontaneous (internal cause) or was there an external cause.

Instead you dwell on the magical sky man and are looking for some little semantic argument you think gives credence to your beliefs.

We have been unable to collect any data from before the Big Bang event. The chances a magic sky man had anything to do with it, however, are the same as imagining a fairy wished the Universe into being.

[Hux]

How do you establish the Universe was 'created' before you can wonder if it was a supernatural act?

[Darat]

Not terribly hard, in my opinion.
You just make the obvious and reasonable inference that there's a form of existence outside of what we refer to as the natural. An existence that is not conditioned by time, space, matter, energy or laws.
Not being conditioned by laws means that existence is above laws, and due to the fact that laws have come into being down on this natural realm, it would be reasonable to assume that this extra-natural (supernatural) existence can create laws and all the rest of it.

...snip...

And you are now into "it's turtles all the way down". The argument you are using about this universe's "laws" can be just as well applied to your "extra natural".

[Darat]

Yet we supposedly have all the evidence for the big bang, at the inception of which time space energy and the laws apparently sprang into existence.

...snip...

Actually "we", as in the scientists don't. All they have been able to do is use the evidence we have to create models that take us further and further back in time - none have yet come up with a model (that is supported by evidence) that encompasses the "moment of creation", anything like that is still speculation.

[Darat]

To answer the thread title's question : "Was the creation of the Universe a supernatural act?" and given what I think Plumjam's definitions are for "creation" and "supernatural" all I can answer is: I don't know.

It may be a question that can never be answered with any certainty, it may indeed be a question that is in fact meaningless outside the fiction of our language, as E.E. "Doc" Smith put it "the whichness of the why".

[Gate2501]

Well, even if the big bang was spawned in some sort of meta-universe, we could only presume that universe would need to have it's own coherent natural laws as well. It wouldn't necessarily be "supernatural", just a different set of rules that we don't play by. I suppose you could call it supernatural if you really wanted to, but it certainly would be rank equivocation to say that what we currently use the word "supernatural" for (ghosts,psi,wacky gods) is somehow validated by a hypothetical metaverse where the big bang singularity may have been chilling pre-bang.

[Hux]

But are we not talking about a cherry picked Supernature where God exists but Vampires do not? just seems like special pleading to me.

[Robert Oz]

Not terribly hard, in my opinion.
You just make the obvious and reasonable inference that there's a form of existence outside of what we refer to as the natural. An existence that is not conditioned by time, space, matter, energy or laws.


Sincerely, I find such an existence inconceivable. I simply cannot conceive of any type of existence independent of time, space, matter, energy or laws. In that case, I remain in the 'I don't know' category, and won't 'believe' in such an existence until there is some sort of positive evidence of it.

Where is an entity in the absence of time and space? And it's not good enough to say 'outside time and space'. What is an entity made of and how does it exist in the absence of matter, energy and laws?

In short, I don't know what the ultimate source of the universe is and I can't speculate on it in the absence of any evidence.

[Darat]

Well, even if the big bang was spawned in some sort of meta-universe, we could only presume that universe would need to have it's own coherent natural laws as well. It wouldn't necessarily be "supernatural", just a different set of rules that we don't play by. I suppose you could call it supernatural if you really wanted to, but it certainly would be rank equivocation to say that what we currently use the word "supernatural" for (ghosts,psi,wacky gods) is somehow validated by a hypothetical metaverse where the big bang singularity may have been chilling pre-bang.

But are we not talking about a cherry picked Supernature where God exists but Vampires do not? just seems like special pleading to me.

Given what I understand of the definition Plumjam is using (from the context of the opening post) I would say that it would be consistent with the idea of leprechauns and unicorns, as these could be "inserted" into our universe from the supernatural universe that we are a sub-set of.

The issue I have with accepting such a viewpoint is that it is pragmatically sterile, by definition we can't know anything about this supernatural universe (paradoxically so - as of course we can't know it exists) so it gives us no way to extend our present knowledge. However if we simply pragmatically accept the current scientific views (i.e. the universe extends back in time, conditions were different) that gives us a tool for possibly extending our knowledge.

So given a choice between the dead-end of the "supernatural creation" and a possibility of extending our knowledge using the only system humans have come up with so far that actually works at explaining the world around us (as I've described it in the past "does what it says on the tin") I have more interest in the model science has (to date) come up with when speculating about how the universe came about.

But in the end as I said earlier it is still just speculation, who knows perhaps one day we will find the discarded Kleenex and know that we are the result of a supernatural sneeze!

[Hux]

Creationists are not going to be happy until, "Blade Runner" like, they find the makers stamp on a scale or a feather. :)

[kuroyume0161]

No. It is "I don't know."

If I asked you what my favorite food is, the only honest response you can give is "I don't know".

Same thing with the first moments of the universe. No one has enough information to make any good conclusions.

Using that analogy, maybe we can torture it out of the universe:

"Bzzzzt. Tell us! Tell us, now! Where did you come from? Bzzzt!"

Nope, not talking.

;)

[Ambrosia]

What you should be asking is was the initiation of the Big Bang spontaneous (internal cause) or was there an external cause.

Doesn't that presume there was a Big Bang at all?

How do we know there was a Big Bang? (not a rhetorical question)

I have a very hard time wrapping my head around the idea that at one point in time all of the mass in the universe was contained within a point, thats a hell of a lot of matter for one point to contain.

Can anyone recommend a good source(s) that explain in laymans terms why exactly the BB hypothesis is our current best guess for the origin of the universe?

[Darat]

Wikipedia is quite good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

And as I stated above: "...Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant....

[KingMerv00]

Using that analogy, maybe we can torture it out of the universe:

"Bzzzzt. Tell us! Tell us, now! Where did you come from? Bzzzt!"

Nope, not talking.

;)

Looking at your avatar, I don't think we should give you the job. You'd enjoy it too much. :D

[Maia]

I have to thank you, plumjam because you've given me a phrase now that sums up how I really feel about this sort of discussion. And that is God fan fiction. It's like "we don't know that part of Harry Potter, so lets just make up what Hermione and Ron said to each other after Harry fell asleep!" It says more about the writer than it does about the truth.

We don't know. Anyone creating an answer because they can't deal with not knowing is just writing fan fiction, either God fan fiction or Science fan fiction. Either way it's the same.

Really? So it's all rated NC-17 and involves Draco in leather pants?

(runs and hides, ending up in unnamed location.)

[Foster Zygote]

Creationists are not going to be happy until, "Blade Runner" like, they find the makers stamp on a scale or a feather. :)

Try Abdul Ben-Hassan, he make this snake.

[arthwollipot]

Doesn't that presume there was a Big Bang at all?

How do we know there was a Big Bang? (not a rhetorical question)

I have a very hard time wrapping my head around the idea that at one point in time all of the mass in the universe was contained within a point, thats a hell of a lot of matter for one point to contain.

Can anyone recommend a good source(s) that explain in laymans terms why exactly the BB hypothesis is our current best guess for the origin of the universe?it's a little off-topic, but I'll give it ago.

You can tell what elements are in a star by putting the light that star emits through a prism to make a rainbow - this is the star's spectrum. The elements show up as characteristic dark lines in the spectrum. Each element makes a different pattern of dark lines, because each element absorbs light differently. These lines are called Frauenhofer lines after the German chemist who discovered them.

Edwin Hubble (the guy that the space telescope was named after) was the first one to notice that the light from distant galaxies contained Frauenhofer lines, but they weren't in their proper place in the spectrum. The patterns were there, but they were shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.

The reason for this is similar to the Doppler shift of sound that you hear when a police car goes by. As it approaches, the pitch of the siren goes up, because the source is "catching up" with the sound waves. The sound waves arrive at your ear with a higher frequency than if the car was standing still. As the car passes and starts moving away, the sound waves arrive at a lower frequency.

For light, lower frequency means red. So if the light source is moving away from us, its light will appear redder. So when Hubble noticed that the spectrums of the distant galaxies were red-shifted, he realised that this implied that the galaxies are moving away from us. Furthermore, he did a bit of clever maths and determined that the further away a galaxy is, the more red-shifted its light.

(Actually, it turns out that the light is red-shifted because of the expansion of the intervening space, rather than being an actual Doppler shift, but the analogy is only a tiny bit misleading.)

Now - all (with a very few exceptions) of the galaxies are moving away from us. This implies one of two things: either our own galaxy is at the centre of the universe as the Aristotleans thought before Galileo, OR that all galaxies are equally moving away from all others. In either case, it implies that at some time in the past, all the galaxies were on top of each other.

Finally, along comes Einstein with his General Theory of Relativity. The details are quite confusing and probably aren't important, but it turns out that the mathematics of relativity also imply that a big bang of some kind occurred. Many very clever mathematicians have confirmed this. If general relativity is true - and we have some very good reasons to think that it is - then the universe had to have had a big bang. It's a direct conclusion.

These two reasons - the observation that the galaxies are moving away, and the mathematics of general relativity - are why we are now pretty certain that the big bang occurred. Yes, I've simplified the situation a lot here. For example, general relativity can also be made to imply other kinds of universes - a matterless rotating universe is one - but these do not agree with our observations of this universe. I've also omitted any mention of Inflation. Cosmology is a pretty complex subject, but I hope I've at least answered your question satisfactorily.

[six7s]

it's a little off-topic, but I'll give it ago.Bravo! :)

[Ambrosia]

it's a little off-topic, but I'll give it ago.

wow - many thanks.

[arthwollipot]

wow - many thanks.I think it's even more or less accurate. Did it help?

[Gestahl]

I think it's even more or less accurate. Did it help?

No more or less to it, it's accurate so far as you have gone into it. I would only add that the reason we know that space is expanding, and not that just everything is moving away from us at some speed due to some weird anti-gravity or something else, is that things further away are receding faster, which is what you would expect from expanding space (more space between the things to expand), but not an explosion *in* space. That's the hard part to wrap your brain around... the Big Bang was an explosion of space and time itself, not an explosion of something already in some space.

In fact we can make pretty reasonable estimations of distance from the amount of redshift something possesses.

[Cainkane1]

The 'natural' - at least in my experience - is rather a nebulous concept, depending largely on particular states of knowledge through time.

Yet all definitions of 'natural' that I have seen have sought to be based on space, time, energy, matter, physical law and other such fundamental familiar concepts.

If, as I believe the physicists say, these things came into being at the beginning of the Universe, wouldn't that rule out the extra-universal state from being natural, and thus make a movement from the extra-universal to the universal a supernatural act?

Even a miracle?

If this is the case it means that all your natural explanations are ultimately founded upon the supernatural.

(Don't worry. I'm not expecting many yeses)
The Universe was created by random events. Because we lack a time machine we may never know everything that went into creation but the Unniverse was definitely not created by an intelligent being. There are many reason to believe this. For instance wouldn't life be more prevalent and obvious in the Universe? Why is there only one planet in our solar system inhabited by intelligent beings?