This is the greatest OP ever.

So this is a non-scientific, fictional ("create a myth") kind of discussion? Neat if so.

So this is a non-scientific, fictional ("create a myth") kind of discussion? Neat if so. — Outlander

I think it is. Not many people realize that you can step outside our universe, and that it looks like a flat dinner plate when you do. There's a special technique to returning, and it involves believing in it. If you believe hard enough, you'll pop back in.

So this is a non-scientific, fictional ("create a myth") kind of discussion? Neat if so. — Outlander

The OP requested "philosophical" theories, not "fictional" stories. Unlike Physicists, philosophers can indulge in Meta-physical theorizing to illustrate possible scenarios, but not to the point of fantastic narratives. Even such fictional characters as Unicorns are not beyond belief : in the course of evolutionary mutations, a horse could conceivably grow a horn. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Like a Black Swan, it could happen. So, let's not get too crazy here. :joke:

Black Swan : The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalised after the fact with the benefit of hindsight

The universe arose out of necessity since nothingness cannot exist.

To be is to have a limit, and there is nothing that has no limit since any state of existence (or non-existence) is limited by its own nature. Infinity cannot be anything else than infinity and that is its limit. Nothingness cannot be anything else than nothingness which means that it has a limit. Since nothingness describes a state of zero existence (absolute non-existence), that nothingness has a limit (a state of non-existence would be a state of non-existence and nothing else) requires that something exists; that is, nothingness can't never be [the "existence" of a state deprived of things that exist (nothingness) would necessarily induce a state populated by things that exist due to its limited nature], and it is this characteristic about nothingness which is responsible for the origin of the universe. That a state of nothingness cannot be forces the existence of a state of absolute existence.

. . . that nothingness has a limit (a state of non-existence would be a state of non-existence and nothing else) requires that something exists; that is, nothingness can't never be [the "existence" of a state deprived of things that exist (nothingness) would necessarily induce a state populated by things that exist due to its limited nature]and it is this characteristic about nothingness which is responsible for the origin of the universe — Daniel

Well, that was easy enough. You might join TheMadFool in his investigations of nothing.

Why does the universe need to be created? Why couldn't it have always existed?

Well, that was easy enough. You might join TheMadFool in his investigations of nothing. — jgill

He might want to watch vintage Seinfeld episodes about producing a TV show about nothing. One of my favorites.

There is no universe. Therefore it didn't need to be created. And when we think that we exist, we are not actually thinking, nor do we exist.

Sketches from a 'causa sui' fairytale:

Given that all extant cosmological evidence indicates that it had a planck radius at "the beginning", the universe is a very-far-from-equilibrium "macroscale" effect of a primordial "microscale uncaused event" (i.e. quantum fluctuation), and therefore not a(n act of) "creation". — 180 Proof

... my understanding is that the BB was a planck-scale event, therefore acausal; or, in other words, the initial conditions of the universe were randomly set [ ... ] As an explanation, saying 'g/G caused it' is indistinguishable from saying it randomly occurred ... — 180 Proof

For those not familiar with this line of thought: Hartle-Hawking No Boundary conjecture. (Maybe no "big bang" at all, just a white hole-like Q-tunneling from a higher (false?) vacuum ... analogous to a twist that transforms a [plane] into a Möbius loop?) — 180 Proof

'13.81 billion years' is the currently estimated 'age' only of this non-planck radius universe (which is emergent, or non-fundamental (Rovelli et al)) and not of the planck vacuum itself. — 180 Proof

The post is not about nothingness; I thought I made it clear it cannot exist. All I said was that the reason there is stuff all around us instead of nothing is because nothingness cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be nothing, therefore there must be something. All there was, there is, and always will be is existence; and this existence arises from the incapacity of nothingness "to be", which I think is different from there always being existence just because.

I thought I made it clear it cannot exist. — Daniel

It's in the middle of my donut.

That is doughnutlessness.

That a state of nothingness cannot be forces the existence of a state of absolute existence. — Daniel

That's why I have concluded that the explanation for the existence of our world, is not just eternal Energy or persistent Matter, or even creation ex nihilo, but the essential power or potential to exist --- which I call "BEING". So, my creation myth begins with Ontology. :smile:

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

That is doughnutlessness — Daniel

It's only one tiny drop of the vast Doughnutlessness.

Do be philosophical — Thinking

Being philosophical, I think, is orders of magnitude harder than coming up with a creation story. Many, perhaps all, creation myths predate philosophy as a formal discipline and once philosophy managed to find a foothold in the human psyche it's been involved with one simple task: mental hygiene.

However, don't be fooled by the word "simple" for it's only so by virtue of the wisdom gained from the collective effort of people actually philosophizing over many generations. Mental hygiene itself is no walk in the park for the mind is a veritable maze complete with booby traps and it's easy to lose one's bearings and, let's not forget, booby traps maim, even kill.

As a matter of mental hygiene, we would have to look back over our shoulders into the past, do an overhaul of old ideas, creation myths being one of them, and also keep an eye on new ideas people seem to continuously churn out on an almost daily basis.

An argument against creation myths that Richard Dawkins employs in his book, The God Delusion, is as follows:

If The universe as complex as ours needs a more complex creator then that creator would itself would need an even more complex creator and such a creator would require a creator of much greater complexity, so on and so forth...ad infinitum.

If you reject the infinite regress above it'd mean you're positing something (a creator) that itself wasn't created but if there can be something that doesn't have to be created, why can't the universe be that which wasn't created?

Creationists have no satisfactory response to this particular counterargument.

My reply to the esteemed Dawkins would be one and only one concept: Technological Singularity. Wikipedia has an article on the topic.

First things first, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and subscribes to the simple to complex evolution of the universe.

Ergo, the creator needn't be more or even as complex as the universe. The creator of our universe could've, in its own universe, achieved the technological singularity and created our universe which is even more complex than its own. The chain of creators extending backwards through time consists of simpler and simpler beings not, as Dawkins and those who share his views supposes, more and more complex beings. There'll come a point in this series of creators when we'll arrive at the simplest of the simplest "creator" [which wouldn't qualify as a being and thus can't be a creator in the usual sense of the word???] and let's just call this simplest of the simplest "creator" the first cause

The question that'll have to remain unanswered is whether our universe is the handiwork of the first cause or that of someone who appears at some other point in the long line of creators. Does it even matter now that there's a first cause, the simplest of the simplest "creator"?

The post is not about nothingness; I thought I made it clear it cannot exist. — Daniel

Can I try to describe what cannot exist or am I unable to even try?

:up:

I guess you could. We could describe a scenario in which this conversation between you and me will never happen; since the conversation already took place (or is taking place) such scenario cannot exist.

Why do you ask?

The question that'll have to remain unanswered is whether our universe is the handiwork of the first cause or that of someone who appears at some other point in the long line of creators. Does it even matter now that there's a first cause, the simplest of the simplest "creator"? — TheMadFool

A nice post. But it seems to me that no matter how one addresses the question it always comes back to “first cause” and then we start again. So no first cause, no beginning and no end.

The post is not about nothingness; I thought I made it clear it cannot exist. — Daniel

That’s funny. Was it meant to be?

Ergo, the creator needn't be more or even as complex as the universe. — TheMadFool

Yes. In my creation story, BEING is simply No-thing, except infinite Potential. Hence, nothing is Actual . . . until Actualized or Realized or Enformed. So BEING, in Dawkins' simple-to-complex conundrum, is Nothingness. And you can't get much simpler than that. But then, how can we explain how Something came from Nothing? That's easy, if No-thing is Potential.

For example, the Big Bang Singularity ( a hypothetical simple mathematical point with no extension in space or time) somehow "existed" prior to space-time. And it was too tiny to contain a universe of Energy or Matter. That is, unless it contained universal Potential . . . perhaps in the form of immaterial Enformation : the power to enform. :smile:

Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

Does anyone happen to know the etymology of nothing and something and their appearance in language in relation to each other over time?

Then what cannot exists has existence as the thing I'm describing.

No. The post is about the impossibility of a state deprived of existence as the reason for which there is a state populated with existing things. A state deprived of existence is impossible.

An idea of a horse is not the same as the horse. Nothingness as an idea can exist, nothingness itself cannot.

... once philosophy managed to find a foothold in the human psyche it's been involved with one simple task: mental hygiene ... itself is no walk in the park for the mind is a veritable maze complete with booby traps and it's easy to lose one's bearings and, let's not forget, booby traps maim, even kill. — TheMadFool

:clap: :fire:

It is impossible for there to be nothing, therefore there must be something. — Daniel

99.999...% of every 'something' (and between somethings) is, in effect, no-thing; so rather, it's impossible for there to be only nothing.

So no first cause, no beginning and no end. — Brett

That doesn't follow. A "beginning" is an event whether or not it is causal or acausal (e.g. vacuum fluctuations)

I would say that the "no-thing" you are referring to is empty space which is something in itself (correct me if I am wrong). The nothingness I am referring to is the complete absence of existing things (a dimensionless, limitless, hypothetical state).

That doesn't follow. A "beginning" is an event whether or not it is causal or acausal (e.g. vacuum fluctuations) — 180 Proof

But somehow we can never nail down that “event”.

Why does the universe need to be created? Why couldn't it have always existed? — 8livesleft

That's true, and, just to cover all logical possibilities, it's possible that there is a creator, but his role was limited to bringing order to the eternally pre-existent chaos. Not every religion believes the creator created the universe ex nihlio, the Mormons for example.