Universe from Nothing?

[MindForgedManacle]

How would a materialist begin, if not with nothing?
If you begin with any other concept, wouldn't you of necessity invoke a descriptive / supportive framework - such as, say, quantum physics?
But if a materialist allowed a conceptual framework at or before the start of anything, or, from "eternity" then he would need to explain the existence of this framework, which is, of itself, a conceptual entity - a supernatural thing.
Materialism, by definition, cannot allow anything supernatural.

Ooh, I'm a materialist (physicalist) and a naturalist, so perhaps I can adequately answer without straw manning as you did.

Firstly, why would a materialist begin with 'nothingness'?

Secondly, as I'm a little familiar with the philosophy of time, your assertion that a framework prior to time is conceptual is nonsense. As an adherent to the B-theory of time (a static view of time's nature), I think the universe existed in a tenseless state of at least 4 dimensions before time "began". This view has the huge benefit of having support from Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; modern physics in general, really. And this view of time fits in well with physicalism and metaphysical naturalism, as far as I can tell.

If you think about it, the invisible laws which uphold the observable universe are far more astounding than the universe itself. The Universe is like a program that runs inside of an operating system. There is an invisible operating system which guides all observable particle behavior, directs all forces. What you see is what is running. What you don't see is the framework that makes all the behavior you can observe, possible.

Saying the universe has laws in the sense that you mean it is nonsensical. It's like thinking of biological evolution as teleological: it's backwards and anthropocentric.

[orogenicman]

If you think about it, the invisible laws which uphold the observable universe are far more astounding than the universe itself. The Universe is like a program that runs inside of an operating system. There is an invisible operating system which guides all observable particle behavior, directs all forces. What you see is what is running. What you don't see is the framework that makes all the behavior you can observe, possible.

Considering how unsuited so much of the universe is for life, it would seem that your invisible operating system is more akin to Windows 95. Where's the intelligence in that?

[downbeatplumb]

Considering how unsuited so much of the universe is for life, it would seem that your invisible operating system is more akin to Windows 95. Where's the intelligence in that?

Not quite windows 95but.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeBS-dNo0Bk

[Faith No More]

If you think about it, the invisible laws which uphold the observable universe are far more astounding than the universe itself. The Universe is like a program that runs inside of an operating system. There is an invisible operating system which guides all observable particle behavior, directs all forces. What you see is what is running. What you don't see is the framework that makes all the behavior you can observe, possible.

Are there actual laws, or are what you call laws simply humanity imposing its desire to classify and arrange its environment upon the universe?

[Simon Moon]

The Universe that we can measure and observe is one ruled by laws and order. The very smallest elements which we can study have ordered forms, and follow laws which allow us to predict many, though not all behaviors.

Order itself, law itself cannot exist on its own; it requires something of a higher order to give it. A legal universe requires God for its origin.

The laws of the universe are descriptive, not proscriptive.



Next....

[Whateverist]

Who says the universe came from nothing?

How would a materialist begin, if not with nothing?

Personally I always start with whatever was there before it achieved the state we call something. Of course neither you, I nor Dr. Krauss really knows what that is but I for one don't call it "nothing". If you and Dr. Krauss want to go on calling it nothing* I'm going to have to put an asterisk on it. You both obvious have in mind a conception of nothing which has "something" as one of its potential states. Or do you think that 'God' created something from nothing even though something was not a possible state of nothing?

[Mister Agenda]

Who says the universe came from nothing?

How would a materialist begin, if not with nothing?

Welcome, JIL. What preceded this iteration of the universe is unknown, and it's not inconsistent with materialism to acknowledge that. 'Philosophical nothingness', that is, 'absolutely nothing' has no properties. It being impossible for anything to be produced by it is a property. Therefore it is a contradiction to conclude that 'from nothing, nothing can proceed'. However, quantum physics suggests that absolute nothingness is impossible, and that the closest to nothing that can exist is the quantum foam. One model for the beginning of the universe is a quantum fluctuation of that medium, which can't 'not exist'. Another possibility that doesn't contradict materialism would be that the universe existed prior to the 'big bang' but it was in a different state. The universe may have existed eternally, in various states.

If you begin with any other concept, wouldn't you of necessity invoke a descriptive / supportive framework - such as, say, quantum physics?

There's no reason to suppose whatever preceded the big bang couldn't be described if we knew enough about it. The problem isn't lack of natural explanations, but not being able to determine which of the most plausible ones is most likely.

But if a materialist allowed a conceptual framework at or before the start of anything, or, from "eternity" then he would need to explain the existence of this framework, which is, of itself, a conceptual entity - a supernatural thing.

Materialism doesn't involve any requirement not to have brute facts. Your designation of an eternal framework as supernatural (or conceptual entities as such) does not make it so.

Materialism, by definition, cannot allow anything supernatural.

Materialism is the position that everything is natural. The proven existence of something supernatural would disprove it. Word games will not.

If you think about it, the invisible laws which uphold the observable universe are far more astounding than the universe itself.

Those 'invisible laws' are our description of things we observe in the universe that appear to be consistent so far. What they're descriptions of is properties of the universe.

The Universe is like a program that runs inside of an operating system. There is an invisible operating system which guides all observable particle behavior, directs all forces.

That would be interesting if you could demonstrate that it's true. Be careful, you might wind up proving that the universe actually IS an operating system and all of this is just a computer simulation.

What you see is what is running. What you don't see is the framework that makes all the behavior you can observe, possible.

How do you know that what you've just said is true?

[Jesus is Lord]

The Universe that we can measure and observe is one ruled by laws and order. The very smallest elements which we can study have ordered forms, and follow laws which allow us to predict many, though not all behaviors.

Order itself, law itself cannot exist on its own; it requires something of a higher order to give it. A legal universe requires God for its origin.

The universe is much too noisy to be called a "legal" universe. You theist seem to forget that this universes is filled with uncertainties and a vast amount of events are unpredictable. The universe is just as much as chaotic as it is ordered.

What would you consider noisy?

---

How would a materialist begin, if not with nothing?
If you begin with any other concept, wouldn't you of necessity invoke a descriptive / supportive framework - such as, say, quantum physics?
But if a materialist allowed a conceptual framework at or before the start of anything, or, from "eternity" then he would need to explain the existence of this framework, which is, of itself, a conceptual entity - a supernatural thing.
Materialism, by definition, cannot allow anything supernatural.

Ooh, I'm a materialist (physicalist) and a naturalist, so perhaps I can adequately answer without straw manning as you did.

Firstly, why would a materialist begin with 'nothingness'?

Secondly, as I'm a little familiar with the philosophy of time, your assertion that a framework prior to time is conceptual is nonsense. As an adherent to the B-theory of time (a static view of time's nature), I think the universe existed in a tenseless state of at least 4 dimensions before time "began". This view has the huge benefit of having support from Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; modern physics in general, really. And this view of time fits in well with physicalism and metaphysical naturalism, as far as I can tell.

If you think about it, the invisible laws which uphold the observable universe are far more astounding than the universe itself. The Universe is like a program that runs inside of an operating system. There is an invisible operating system which guides all observable particle behavior, directs all forces. What you see is what is running. What you don't see is the framework that makes all the behavior you can observe, possible.

Saying the universe has laws in the sense that you mean it is nonsensical. It's like thinking of biological evolution as teleological: it's backwards and anthropocentric.

Anthropocentrism is not escapable. Athiests and theists alike view the world through filters. The criticism of anthropocentrism is like one fish calling another fish wet. The question is - how does a universe which all physicists would agree is deeply ordered, begin from nothing? If it did not begin from nothing, explain what preceeded it without invoking anything supernatural.

---

The Universe that we can measure and observe is one ruled by laws and order. The very smallest elements which we can study have ordered forms, and follow laws which allow us to predict many, though not all behaviors.

Order itself, law itself cannot exist on its own; it requires something of a higher order to give it. A legal universe requires God for its origin.

The laws of the universe are descriptive, not proscriptive.



Next....

Not sure why you use the word "proscriptive." Did you mean, "prescriptive?"

The Laws of the universe give us tremendous predictive capability, because the universe contains so much deep order. Other posts insist that there really is not that much order to the universe, but that is a fairly thin assertion. How did a Universe come from nothing? If not nothing - then what? Explain the rise of the Universe without implying a supernatural agent of some kind.

[Lion IRC]

If premise 1 is true it follows by necessary inference.
partial quote

Why?

Because it is entailed in the given definition of God who creatively
drafted the laws. Isn't it?

Anarchy would entail the absence of laws.

---

The soul?
The afterlife?

Sure. An atheist can believe in a soul. There are many definition of the term that an atheist could accept.

As for an afterlife? Quantum Suicide Theory anyone?

What is quantum suicide theory vis-a-vis the afterlife?
I'm happy to Google it but if you have a suggested starting point for reading I would be grateful. :-)

[Esquilax]

Anthropocentrism is not escapable. Athiests and theists alike view the world through filters. The criticism of anthropocentrism is like one fish calling another fish wet. The question is - how does a universe which all physicists would agree is deeply ordered, begin from nothing? If it did not begin from nothing, explain what preceeded it without invoking anything supernatural.

All physicists agree that the universe is ordered, do they? That's why we've got chaos theory, and the weirdness of quantum mechanics, right?

The Laws of the universe give us tremendous predictive capability, because the universe contains so much deep order. Other posts insist that there really is not that much order to the universe, but that is a fairly thin assertion. How did a Universe come from nothing? If not nothing - then what? Explain the rise of the Universe without implying a supernatural agent of some kind.

If we say we don't know how the universe began, why would that be evidence for your god? Let's not indulge in arguments from ignorance, shall we?