The question of "How did everything come from nothing?" assumes there was "nothing" at some point. "Nothing" may be a purely human concept we have created, and for all we know, there never was "nothing" and there always was and always will be "something" in what we call the universe.

Physicists can only extrapolate back so far to what they call "the start" of the universe. Why isn't it possible that there has never been "nothing" and what exists and has always existed is a cyclical/oscillatory universe that, for some reason unknown to physicists at this point in history, the universe expands for tens of billions of years and then turns arounds, contracts for tens of billions of years, "crunches" and "blows up" with a bang when the mass-energy density gets ridiculously large, and then goes back into an expansion period, and the process continues?

Afterall, we haven't been around long enough (nor has the universe) to get enough data points on how the rate of the "universe's expansion" changes over hundreds or thousands of billions of years. Obviously it's going to look pretty linear over just a couple hundred years on those time scales, and maybe even 10 billion years is a "short time scale" that is "obviously" going to look fairly linearly at this stage as far as the universe is concerned. Maybe the period of the oscillation is 100 trillion or more years for all we know.

None of this would require a hidden, and poorly defined, variable dubbed "God" FWIW.

Both good responses...should be interesting to see how the OP responds to them.

How, by begging the question? When you start with the 'assumption' that "The concept of "reason" is absolutely anthropomorphic and doesn't apply to the world out there," there's a slight chance you'll conclude the universe is without purpose.

Why does there have to be a reason for things, even rules?

We've never been able to look at something and say, "there is no reason or cause behind this". We've only ever been able to say, "We don't know the reason or cause behind this". So for you to say that some things "just are" without any reason or cause is to introduce an idea which has simply never been observed....ever.

My position rest on one postulate, that the universe has to be sensical. There are first principles whose only reason for being what they are is because if they weren't such, the universe would not make sense. Their values or attributes are a consequence of that postulate.

Mathematics is a good example. The reason 2+2=4 is because if it equaled something else, we would have a nonsensical universe.

Because thats the way we make sense of the world around us. Reason and purpose are human constructs, that don't apply necessarily.

Just because something hasn't been observed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Everytime you observe a white swan without ever observing a black swan, it increases the likelyhood that there are no black swans. Is it a sure thing there are no black swans? No. Even if you observed 1 trillion swans and they were all white, you still couldn't be certain there were no black swans. Nevertheless you would be pretty safe at that point in betting against the existence of black swans.

Bunny's position is akin to betting on the existence of black swans when the evidence available to him suggest overwhelmingly, that no such creature exists. I'll grant you He could be right but it is a longshot.

But now that I think about it, I'm not even sure its true everything we've observed has a direct purpose. What is the purpose of an electron being in two places at once?

You cant really just turn around the black swan fallacy to make your case. The point is that just because we haven't seen any black swans doesn't mean there aren't any. Every white swan I see doesn't increase the chances of there only being white swans, it just means thats all we have seen.

Well, you've said this about three times I think and haven't seemed to notice my response. Suffice it to say that whatever it is you're refuting, it's not what I mean by a brute fact.

I'm not making the claim you think I am. Brute facts are things we don't have a reason for, they're not things which don't have a reason.

As for "...simply never been observed." how do you know that? Some of the things we can't explain may have no explanation.

this is an error (a restatement at best). You're thinking about it backwards.

The reason an electron can be in two places at once is because an electron is a wave. Now what is the reason an electron is a wave? I don't know but there is likely a reason behind it which will have another reason behind it...etc...etc...etc....and if you trace it all the way back, it would lead to a first principle which is required otherwise the universe would not make sense.

Why does an electrons orbit atomic nucleus in "shells"? Because an electron is a wave and at most distances the wave will cancel itself out. However at a few specific distances the wave re-enforces itself(hence the shells). If the electron could orbit the nucleus inbetween the "shells" it would lead to a nonsensical situation(a canceled out wave existing as a uncanceled out wave).

No, you are wrong here. Look at post 181 in this thread. Jason1990 provides a mathematical proof(make sure you read the quoted stuff).

Not the reason, the purpose.


Thanks for the link, i'll check it out later.

You seem to be saying there are 2 kinds of brute facts. Real brute facts like mathmatics and logic, and other brute facts....things which we simply don't know the explaination and may never know the explaination. I'm suggesting there is only one kind of brute fact and it is an error to think about that which is unknown as a brute fact.

I keep using the 2+2=4 example because it is the simpliest way I can think of to explain what a brute fact is and how its reason for existing is to provide for a sensical universe.

I can't prove you wrong but as I explained to Sommerset it is not likely to be true. What is more likely is an explaination exists for everything....it just that the explaination may be impossible for us to uncover.

'Cause the truth you might be runnin' from is so small

I might be wrong. I don't know that the hypothesis, "there is a reason for everything...including rules" is falsifiable. I don't know that we could ever be in a situation where we can say, "X is, simply because it is". Until we have learned everything the situation would always be such that we could claim, "We don't yet know why X is".

No, I'm suggesting there's only one.
Yeah, but it was my term. I also think there's only one kind of brute fact - that for which we (currently) have no reason and just accept as true.
Sure, you can define brute fact however you like. I understand, I just don't see the value in using the same term I did to indicate a different concept.
More likely, eh? The two probabilities being...?

In my opinion more importantly we do not adhere to a moral system that depends on wether Lincoln was assassinated or not. I can grant anyone that Lincoln is pure fiction and my moral code won't change one bit. Christians cannot do the same about Jesus.

you really have a problem with "I don't know, but we're working on it," don't you?

if you dont know then you're agnostic, not an atheist. And if you dont know you cant leave out an almighty creator as a possibility.

] No, this has been covered here ad nausem

This is the only post of yours that I'm willing to dignify with an answer, because maybe.... Just maybe, you'll be willing to learn something when it comes to something as straight forward as word definitions.

Theism/atheism pertain to belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist, or even an agnostic theist.

Even if we assume something can come _from_ nothing, that doesnt mean that everything came from nothing. And even if everything _came_ from nothing, that doesn't mean all things come from nothing as some of them could have come from everything else.

Not that it matters much, because if anything comes from something else, it's generally implied that something else is something. So the question is misguided and a little silly.

Language is fun!

Hey Bunny where is South Austalia anyways?

Just north of Anarctica.

Don't they call that Falkland Islands? Or South America or Australia?

I've never heard of Austalia though.

Occasionally, even a teat of wisdom can learn new things.