Being cannot come from Non-being

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The endurance of bullshit stories created around camel dung campfires thousands of years ago is a monument to the lazy thinking of humans.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I didn't even have to post in the thread and still, Otangelo succumbed to FSM's might.

Glory to gob.  RAmen

the common candards, as usual. All Lemons are citrus, mushrooms are not citrus. Its not special pleading . This isn’t special pleading because there is a category difference. God is not in the same category as the creation. God is in a league of His own. He is… the great I AM.

And no. No false dichotomy. Either there is an eternal creator, or not. How it is rational to claim there isn't, and that the universe sprang up out of nothing, is beyond me.

What's a 'candard'?

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A Canuck without a few sandwiches short of a picnic?

[Brian37]

a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be an eternal spirit.

Universe came from eternal Cosmos and as Carl Sagan said

I think there is an eternal fluctuation between states of off and on. But neither require a super cognition to eb and flow between those states.

Cognition is an emergent  property of life/evolution.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A Canuck without a few sandwiches short of a picnic?

I thought it was some sort of duck.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

According to the available evidence, our universe was once in a very hot dense state, then suddenly expanded to begin forming the cosmos we can observe today. In other words, our universe is a transformation of a previous 'state of the universe'. We don't know 'where' that previous state came from. It may have existed eternally as a the hot dense sum of all matter and energy or it may have periodically or randomly fluctuated between that state and universes as we understand them. There are multiple ways our universe could be eternal, not requiring a beginning because it has always been. Given that the beginning of time is tied to the initial expansion, it is fair to say the universe always existed on that basis alone.

If our universe did 'come from non-being', the physics and math don't have a problem with that either. It is a category mistake to apply a state of affairs within the universe (causality, energy, entropy, matter, space, and time) to the universe. Events within the universe requiring a cause does not translate into the universe itself requiring a cause, any more than a wall made of indestructible bricks requires that the wall itself be indestructible.

PS: Welcome to the forum, Ontangelo.

[Alex K]

Time and space are very probably quantized and thus fuzzy and with uncertainty and entanglement built in, and it might be naive to think that time needs to go on as this linear infinite smooth continuum as the OP seems to take for granted. I don't see why time should behave like that at the Big Bang, and with that all the naive assumptions bad philosophers make about time and causality become questionable.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My favorite theory is that every super massive black hole in this universe is a white hole on the other side of the event horizon. Different time rate, of course. So we're the result of a black hole in some other universe.

[Alex K]

My favorite theory is that every super massive black hole in this universe is a white hole on the other side of the event horizon. Different time rate, of course. So we're the result of a black hole in some other universe.

Do you know Lee Smolin's evolution hypothesis?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My favorite theory is that every super massive black hole in this universe is a white hole on the other side of the event horizon. Different time rate, of course. So we're the result of a black hole in some other universe.

Do you know Lee Smolin's evolution hypothesis?

Nope.