Human intelligence is a recipe to existential crisis. We not only able to perceive the world around us, we are also capable of questions regarding the universe and existence herself.

One question that is at the pinnacle of our enquiry is Why exactly does anything exist at all?

Very many approaches we have towards answering this questions may lead us towards different method of thinking and worldview, but one thing neither of us can deny is: The universe exists

Whether as a hologram
objective matter
matrix

what ever your perception about the universe is, the end point is; it exists.

And this begs the question; Why?

Why does something exist rather than nothing?

Theologically, the natural answer to this question is, God.
From conventional religious world view the universe was created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) by God.

But then the question we are addressing is; Why is there something instead of nothing?
And if God is the answer then obviously God is also something and thus if we must pursue this question courageously we must ask the next question.

Why is there God (something) rather than nothing?

The obvious answer to this theologically is that God has always existed.

This argument can also be extended to the universe by stating it has always existed therefore eliminating the need for God as a cause (not necessarily as a designer).

Aristotle argued that the idea of an uncaused cause is nonsensical, that the universe just is.

Going further in this answer, we explore the remarkable position of the ancient Hindus. They happen to have a profound perspective on existence, cosmological causality.

Like Aristotle, the Hindus believe in an eternal universe but this eternity is looped like a circle.
From Hindu cosmogony; the universe is going through an eternal loop of death and rebirth. A circular existential model that makes out the universe to be just an incessant repetition or perfect balance between birth and death. An old universe dies and a new one springs up from it, round and round it goes.

One of the implications of the big bang model is an oscillating universe. This implication suggests that with the right amount of gravitational force present in the universe, the universe will eventually collapse on itself and form a kind or singularity which ultimately sparks off another Big bang and thus it goes like the Hindu model.

Now with this background in place i will go ahead and make my own argument:

I happen to think that ex nihilo is nonsensical at best (Though i leave a possibility due to the knowledge that my perception on the necessity of causality is not objectively or cosmologically binding, it is just the reach of my perception)

Even if the universe was designed, i do not think God created the universe out of nothing, i do believe if we apply the principle of design as we know it just like the principle of causality; you can't design nothing but can design something.

so for God to design the universe, the universe must have existed in a raw form prior to God's manipulation (ex materia).

Therefore i hold the idea that the universe has always existed whether designed or not.

And if the universe have always existed, the question why is there something instead of nothing becomes a logical absurdity..

What about you?

What do you think?

Do you subscribe to the ex nihilo or ex materia?

Why do you think there is something rather than nothing?

questions like this do not have answers. all those who searched for answers to questions about existence follow the same road; they ask the question, postulate some theories most of which are filled with holes and then they just conclude that what is just is. we acknowledge and accept that there is something and make the best use of it.

Johnydon22, I'd like to introduce you to creation.com

I'd like you to check out what they have to say on things like the eternal universe theory, and the theory of unending cycle of universes.

I found the lecture in the link below, given by Stephen Hawking, who was an atheist. I think you might want to check out what Hawking has to say on whether the universe has always existed.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

For the other things he discussed in the lecture, I want you to note the amount of "would haves" and "ifs" and other like words in the lecture.

johnydon22:
Human intelligence is a recipe to existential crisis. We not only able to perceive the world around us, we are also capable of questions regarding the universe and existence herself.

One question that is at the pinnacle of our enquiry is Why exactly does anything exist at all?

Very many approaches we have towards answering this questions may lead us towards different method of thinking and worldview, but one thing neither of us can deny is: The universe exists

Whether as a hologram
objective matter
matrix

what ever your perception about the universe is, the end point is; it exists.

And this begs the question; Why?

Why does something exist rather than nothing?

Theologically, the natural answer to this question is, God.
From conventional religious world view the universe was created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) by God.

But then the question we are addressing is; Why is there something instead of nothing?
And if God is the answer then obviously God is also something and thus if we must pursue this question courageously we must ask the next question.

Why is there God (something) rather than nothing?

you know what baffle me? the atheist concept of God, why you guys portray Him as material ,limited and contained within the confine of the universe........ isn't that a self defeating concept of God to begin with? the Christian perspective has always been 1 king 8:27:
" But will God indeed dwell on the earth? the heaven cannot contain thee"

Gggg102:
questions like this do not have answers.

Perhaps but I think they do maybe not yet but eventually.

all those who searched for answers to questions about existence follow the same road; they ask the question, postulate some theories most of which are filled with holes and then they just conclude that what is just is.

With each attempt and study we get closer and closer in quality of truthful approximation

we acknowledge and accept that there is something and make the best use of it.

Good idea

DoctorAlien:
I found the lecture in the link below, given by Stephen Hawking, who was an atheist. I think you might want to check out what Hawking has to say on whether the universe has always existed.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

For the other things he discussed in the lecture, I want you to note the amount of "would haves" and "ifs" and other like words in the lecture.

I have read a brief history of time..

What's the point you are making?

malvisguy212:
you know what baffle me? the atheist concept of God, why you guys portray Him as material ,limited and contained within the confine of the universe........ isn't that a self defeating concept of God to begin with? the Christian perspective has always been 1 king 8:27:
" But will God indeed dwell on the earth? the heaven cannot contain thee"

1. Please I am not interested in your biblical quotations Malvisguy

2. You have not made any argument yet..

DoctorAlien:
Johnydon22, I'd like to introduce you to creation.com

I'd like you to check out what they have to say on things like the eternal universe theory, and the theory of unending cycle of universes.

Great...

johnydon22:


I have read a brief history of time..

What's the point you are making?

The lecture in that link I posted is not "A Brief History of Time", which is a 256-page book published in 1988. The lecture in the link I posted is titled "The Beginning of Time". And I don't think that you have read that article, or else you would not be making assertions like the one below which you made in the OP

johnydon22:


Therefore i hold the idea that the universe has always existed whether designed or not.

DoctorAlien:


The lecture in that link I posted is not "A Brief History of Time", which is a 256-page book published in 1988. The lecture in the link I posted is titled "The Beginning of Time". And I don't think that you have read that article, or else you would not be making assertions like the one below which you made in the OP

So what you mean is that supposing I have read the lecture I would have modified my conclusion to coincide with Stephen Hawkins'?

johnydon22:
Human intelligence is a recipe to existential crisis. We not only able to perceive the world around us, we are also capable of questions regarding the universe and existence herself.

One question that is at the pinnacle of our enquiry is Why exactly does anything exist at all?

Very many approaches we have towards answering this questions may lead us towards different method of thinking and worldview, but one thing neither of us can deny is: The universe exists

Whether as a hologram
objective matter
matrix

what ever your perception about the universe is, the end point is; it exists.

And this begs the question; Why?

Why does something exist rather than nothing?

Theologically, the natural answer to this question is, God.
From conventional religious world view the universe was created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) by God.

But then the question we are addressing is; Why is there something instead of nothing?
And if God is the answer then obviously God is also something and thus if we must pursue this question courageously we must ask the next question.

Why is there God (something) rather than nothing?

The obvious answer to this theologically is that God has always existed.

This argument can also be extended to the universe by stating it has always existed therefore eliminating the need for God as a cause (not necessarily as a designer).

Aristotle argued that the idea of an uncaused cause is nonsensical, that the universe just is.

Going further in this answer, we explore the remarkable position of the ancient Hindus. They happen to have a profound perspective on existence, cosmological causality.

Like Aristotle, the Hindus believe in an eternal universe but this eternity is looped like a circle.
From Hindu cosmogony; the universe is going through an eternal loop of death and rebirth. A circular existential model that makes out the universe to be just an incessant repetition or perfect balance between birth and death. An old universe dies and a new one springs up from it, round and round it goes.

One of the implications of the big bang model is an oscillating universe. This implication suggests that with the right amount of gravitational force present in the universe, the universe will eventually collapse on itself and form a kind or singularity which ultimately sparks off another Big bang and thus it goes like the Hindu model.

Now with this background in place i will go ahead and make my own argument:

I happen to think that ex nihilo is nonsensical at best (Though i leave a possibility due to the knowledge that my perception on the necessity of causality is not objectively or cosmologically binding, it is just the reach of my perception)

Even if the universe was designed, i do not think God created the universe out of nothing, i do believe if we apply the principle of design as we know it just like the principle of causality; you can't design nothing but can design something.

so for God to design the universe, the universe must have existed in a raw form prior to God's manipulation (ex materia).

Therefore i hold the idea that the universe has always existed whether designed or not.

And if the universe have always existed, the question why is there something instead of nothing becomes a logical absurdity..

What about you?

What do you think?

Do you subscribe to the ex nihilo or ex materia?

Why do you think there is something rather than nothing?

i have another thought. What if ex nihilo and ex material are both real. maybe the reason why there is something rather than nothing is because we both have mistakenly overlooked the fact that they both exist. i suspect the are harmonious conjoined opposites. Neither can exist without the other. That means that there is something even more basic which is both something and nothing. lets call it Possibility. Possibility is what underlies probability in quantum mechanics. therefore, i my good to say possibility is indeed possible?

johnydon22:


So what you mean is that supposing I have read the lecture I would have modified my conclusion to coincide with Stephen Hawkins'?

Oh! Forgive me. I forgot that everyone is entitled to believing whatever they want to believe.

DoctorAlien:


Oh! Forgive me. I forgot that everyone is entitled to believing whatever they want to believe.

Answer the question.

The lecture is actually a summary of A brief history of time

And second question: what implication of Hawkins' lecture negates an eternal oscillating cosmos?

johnydon22:


Answer the question.

And second question: what implication of Hawkins' lecture negates an eternal oscillating cosmos?

Lol. The very title of Hawking's lecture should prove to you that he does not agree with the theory of oscillating cosmos/cyclic universes, because it requires time to not have a beginning.

But let's see. What do you think that Hawking means when he says in the lecture that your theory is in bad trouble when it conflicts with the Second Law of Thermodynamics? If the universe has been going through an eternal series of contractions and expansions – our Big Bang supposedly being the latest contraction in an eternal series, we should find ourselves in a universe that is completely disordered and dead, which is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts should happen.

An article from New Scientist puts it this way:

“Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.” Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012; from https://creation.com/universe-had-a-beginning

We do not find ourselves in such a universe, hence a cyclical universe cannot extend infinitely into the past.

johnydon22:
Human intelligence is a recipe to existential crisis.
We not only able to perceive the world around us,
we are also capable of questions regarding the universe and existence herself.

One question that is at the pinnacle of our enquiry is
Why exactly does anything exist at all?

"Worthy are You, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power;
for You created all things,
and because of Your will they existed and were created."
- Revelation 4:11

Where there's a will there's a way.
If One is determined enough, One can find a way to achieve what One wants, even if it is very hard.
Genesis 18:14, Jeremiah 32:27 and Luke 1:37 are useful and informative, methinks.
I guess, anything exist at all because, creation was and/or is calling, to be created

johnydon22:
Very many approaches we have towards answering this questions may lead us towards different method of thinking and worldview,
but one thing neither of us can deny is: The universe exists

Whether as a hologram
objective matter
matrix

The universe exists as an objective matter with a matrix undertone

johnydon22:
what ever your perception about the universe is, the end point is; it exists.
And this begs the question; Why?
Why does something exist rather than nothing?

Why not?
Why does this thread had to be opened rather than not be opened?
Prerogative things?

johnydon22:
Theologically, the natural answer to this question is, God

Now let's behave correctly and be properly theologically sensible here
If its going to be a theologically natural response to the question then, then the answer has to be, it is because God said and/or says so

After all, the "Let..." catchphrase
as in, to cause and make something to happen by not doing anything to stop it from coming into being
or to allow someone to do something by not doing anything to stop the action
or give your permission for something to take place and come about
is a recognisable special one that is associated with a particular famous Person.

johnydon22:
From conventional religious world view the universe was created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) by God.

From conventional religious world view the universe, was created, CORRECTLY, "creatio ex-materia"

johnydon22:
But then the question we are addressing is;
Why is there something instead of nothing?
And if God is the answer then obviously God is also something
and thus if we must pursue this question courageously we must ask the next question.

Why is there God (something) rather than nothing?

The obvious answer to this theologically is that God has always existed

At the emboldened underlined. Bravo!
Where there is nothing, there is God.

johnydon22:
This argument can also be extended to the universe
by stating it has always existed therefore eliminating the need for God as a cause
(not necessarily as a designer)

[img]https://s1/images/HistoryUniverse.jpg[/img]
God CREATED the universe
not much different to how, Bill Gates, created the world's largest software business, Microsoft, using a combination of knowledge and method(s)?

I am sorry I cant, in toto, tell you EXACTLY how, God designed and created the universe.
Reiterating, conventional wisdom, plus science, as seen in above pic,
however each, give a simplified understanding of everything that happened 1 second after the Big Bang

Let's discuss, close to home - man's sperm;
a worthy of attention workmanship of an Intelligent Designer

In creation of human, the journey of the sperm in search of the egg, is mind-boggling and extremely interesting

johnydon22:
Aristotle argued that the idea of an uncaused cause is nonsensical, that the universe just is.

Going further in this answer, we explore the remarkable position of the ancient Hindus.
They happen to have a profound perspective on existence, cosmological causality.

Like Aristotle, the Hindus believe in an eternal universe but this eternity is looped like a circle.
From Hindu cosmogony; the universe is going through an eternal loop of death and rebirth.
A circular existential model that makes out the universe to be just an incessant repetition or perfect balance between birth and death.
An old universe dies and a new one springs up from it, round and round it goes.

One of the implications of the big bang model is an oscillating universe.
This implication suggests that with the right amount of gravitational force present in the universe,
the universe will eventually collapse on itself and form a kind or singularity which ultimately sparks off another Big bang
and thus it goes like the Hindu model.

Now with this background in place i will go ahead and make my own argument:

I happen to think that ex nihilo is nonsensical at best
(Though i leave a possibility due to the knowledge that my perception on the necessity of causality is not objectively or cosmologically binding,
it is just the reach of my perception)

Even if the universe was designed, i do not think God created the universe out of nothing,
i do believe if we apply the principle of design as we know it just like the principle of causality;
you can't design nothing but can design something.

so for God to design the universe, the universe must have existed in a raw form prior to God's manipulation (ex materia).

Therefore i hold the idea that the universe has always existed whether designed or not.

And if the universe have always existed, the question why is there something instead of nothing becomes a logical absurdity..

Even astronomers, are at sea, because all the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today, make up just 4% of the universe,
whilst the rest 96% of the universe, is made of mysterious and invisible matter.

These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter

Dark matter, which makes up 22% of the universe, is a material that has yet to be detected in the laboratory

Dark energy is a gravitationally repulsive entity.
Its existence is confirmed and determined to fill 74% of the universe.

johnydon22:
What about you?

"Why Is There Something Instead Of Nothing? A Philosophical Overview"

If about above quotation, then nothing created God.
Even Aristotle, that you previously quoted, accepts God, who is the First Cause, as a necessary being who has always existed from eternity.

johnydon22:
What do you think?

I am thinking:
If atheism is true, that God doesnt exist, then, God created nothing.
If theism is true, that God exists and exists as a First Cause, then, God created nothing

The nothing created, is not a vacuum (i.e. it's not an empty space or something entirely devoid of matter)
The empty space is actually, in the universe, depicted as the lying on its side church dumbbell cone of expansion image above,
and the empty space is something from nothing
Now where there is nothing, there is God, a non-physical Force, who is another Something.

johnydon22:
Do you subscribe to the ex nihilo or ex materia?

Again, friend, "creatio ex-materia"
and not ex materia, as you incorrectly put it
Without a shadow of doubt, subscription is trio
"creatio ex nihilo" "creatio ex-materia" and "creatio ex deo"

johnydon22:
Why do you think there is something rather than nothing?

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
²The same was in the beginning with God.
³All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
- John 1:1-3

Just like Aristotle, I believe, God to be the Prime Mover/Unmoved Mover,
who caused creation into existence but no one caused God to exist.

Reiterating, the nothing, is not a vacuum
The empty space is the universe depicted as the lying on its side church dumbbell cone of expansion image above,
and the empty space is something from nothing
Now when and/or where there is nothing, there is God, a non-physical Force, immaterial Something.

"I'm not religious in the normal sense.
I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science.
The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."
- Stephen Hawking ©

DoctorAlien:


Lol. The very title of Hawking's lecture should prove to you that he does not agree with the theory of oscillating cosmos/cyclic universes, because it requires time to not have a beginning.

But let's see. What do you think that Hawking means when he says in the lecture that your theory is in bad trouble when it conflicts with the Second Law of Thermodynamics? If the universe has been going through an eternal series of contractions and expansions – our Big Bang supposedly being the latest contraction in an eternal series, we should find ourselves in a universe that is completely disordered and dead, which is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts should happen.

An article from New Scientist puts it this way:

“Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.” Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012; from https://creation.com/universe-had-a-beginning

We do not find ourselves in such a universe, hence a cyclical universe cannot extend infinitely into the past.

To invoke Hawkins' lecture further still

"If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. "

Can we further this implication then?/

vaxx:
i have another thought. What if ex nihilo and ex material are both real. maybe the reason why there is something rather than nothing is because we both have mistakenly overlooked the fact that they both exist. i suspect the are harmonious conjoined opposites. Neither can exist without the other. That means that there is something even more basic which is both something and nothing. lets call it Possibility. Possibility is what underlies probability in quantum mechanics. therefore, i my good to say possibility is indeed possible?

Nice perspective, I'd like to hear more

johnydon22:


To invoke Hawkins' lecture further still

"If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. "

Can we further this implication then?/

It is really interesting that the excerpt you posted began with the word "if", and that Hawking refers to his "no boundary condition" as a hypothesis in the lecture.

I like that Hawking was very honest in calling this concept of his "imaginary time". However, I don't think the excerpt you posted supports the eternal cyclic universe theory which conflicts badly with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Instead, I think Hawking was trying so hard to circumvent the need for a Creator, which a singularity poses. I believe this is evident from the conclusion of the lecture in which he at least admits that real time would still require a singularity. You see, a singularity would mean a beginning of time, and barring any explanation, a Creator. To marry the inevitable beginning of the universe with his Creatorless worldview, he invokes imaginary time before real time. Just what was happening at that imaginary time, he did not tell us. I guess imaginary things were happening in the imaginary time in preparation for the coming into existence of the real time. All imaginary.

Anyway, according to William Lane Craig, "Hawking acknowledges that models which use imaginary time “are not realistic descriptions of the universe“, rather, they have only instrumental value. [William Lane Craig, Time and Eternity, pg. 218 (2001) referencing Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, pgs. 3-4, 121; cf 53-55 (1996)] Hawking also admits that when you go back to the “real time in which we live”, “there will still appear to be singularities.” [William Lane Craig, Time and Eternity, pg. 218 (2001) referencing Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pg. 139 (1996)]"
http://factsandfaith.com/does-imaginary-time-eliminate-the-need-for-a-creator/

If only the imaginary would be allowed to remain imaginary...

MuttleyLaff:
"Worthy are You, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power;
for You created all things,
and because of Your will they existed and were created."
- Revelation 4:11

Where there's a will there's a way.
If One is determined enough, One can find a way to achieve what One wants, even if it is very hard.
Genesis 18:14, Jeremiah 32:27 and Luke 1:37 are useful and informative, methinks.
I guess, anything exist at all because, creation was and/or is calling, to be created


The universe exists as an objective matter with a matrix undertone

Why not?
Why does this thread had to be opened rather than not be opened?
Prerogative things?

Now let's behave correctly and be properly theologically sensible here
If its going to be a theologically natural response to the question then, then the answer has to be, it is because God said and/or says so

After all, the "Let..." catchphrase
as in, to cause and make something to happen by not doing anything to stop it from coming into being
or to allow someone to do something by not doing anything to stop the action
or give your permission for something to take place and come about
is a recognisable special one that is associated with a particular famous Person.

From conventional religious world view the universe, was created, CORRECTLY, "creatio ex-materia"

At the emboldened underlined. Bravo!
Where there is nothing, there is God.

[img]https://s1/images/HistoryUniverse.jpg[/img]
God CREATED the universe
not much different to how, Bill Gates, created the world's largest software business, Microsoft, using a combination of knowledge and method(s)?

I am sorry I cant, in toto, tell you EXACTLY how, God designed and created the universe.
Reiterating, conventional wisdom, plus science, as seen in above pic,
however each, give a simplified understanding of everything that happened 1 second after the Big Bang

Let's discuss, close to home - man's sperm;
a worthy of attention workmanship of an Intelligent Designer

In creation of human, the journey of the sperm in search of the egg, is mind-boggling and extremely interesting

Even astronomers, are at sea, because all the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today, make up just 4% of the universe,
whilst the rest 96% of the universe, is made of mysterious and invisible matter.

These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter

Dark matter, which makes up 22% of the universe, is a material that has yet to be detected in the laboratory

Dark energy is a gravitationally repulsive entity.
Its existence is confirmed and determined to fill 74% of the universe.

"Why Is There Something Instead Of Nothing? A Philosophical Overview"

If about above quotation, then nothing created God.
Even Aristotle, that you previously quoted, accepts God, who is the First Cause, as a necessary being who has always existed from eternity.

I am thinking:
If atheism is true, that God doesnt exist, then, God created nothing.
If theism is true, that God exists and exists as a First Cause, then, God created nothing

The nothing created, is not a vacuum (i.e. it's not an empty space or something entirely devoid of matter)
The empty space is actually, in the universe, depicted as the lying on its side church dumbbell cone of expansion image above,
and the empty space is something from nothing
Now where there is nothing, there is God, a non-physical Force, who is another Something.

Again, friend, "creatio ex-materia"
and not ex materia, as you incorrectly put it
Without a shadow of doubt, subscription is trio
"creatio ex nihilo" "creatio ex-materia" and "creatio ex deo"

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
²The same was in the beginning with God.
³All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
- John 1:1-3

Just like Aristotle, I believe, God to be the Prime Mover/Unmoved Mover,
who caused creation into existence but no one caused God to exist.

Reiterating, the nothing, is not a vacuum
The empty space is the universe depicted as the lying on its side church dumbbell cone of expansion image above,
and the empty space is something from nothing
Now when and/or where there is nothing, there is God, a non-physical Force, immaterial Something.

"I'm not religious in the normal sense.
I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science.
The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."
- Stephen Hawking ©

Alright good perspective

DoctorAlien:


It is really interesting that the excerpt you posted began with the word "if", and that Hawking refers to his "no boundary condition" as a hypothesis in the lecture.

I like that Hawking was very honest in calling this concept of his "imaginary time". However, I don't think the excerpt you posted supports the eternal cyclic universe theory which conflicts badly with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Instead, I think Hawking was trying so hard to circumvent the need for a Creator, which a singularity poses. I believe this is evident from the conclusion of the lecture in which he at least admits that real time would still require a singularity. You see, a singularity would mean a beginning of time, and barring any explanation, a Creator. To marry the inevitable beginning of the universe with his Creatorless worldview, he invokes imaginary time before real time. Just what was happening at that imaginary time, he did not tell us. I guess imaginary things were happening in the imaginary time in preparation for the coming into existence of the real time. All imaginary.

Anyway, according to William Lane Craig, "Hawking acknowledges that models which use imaginary time “are not realistic descriptions of the universe“, rather, they have only instrumental value. [William Lane Craig, Time and Eternity, pg. 218 (2001) referencing Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, pgs. 3-4, 121; cf 53-55 (1996)] Hawking also admits that when you go back to the “real time in which we live”, “there will still appear to be singularities.” [William Lane Craig, Time and Eternity, pg. 218 (2001) referencing Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pg. 139 (1996)]"
http://factsandfaith.com/does-imaginary-time-eliminate-the-need-for-a-creator/

If only the imaginary would be allowed to remain imaginary...

Actually the concept of imaginary time is a term used for an extra dimensional time, i have explained this here to someone before. the concept of space/time continuum in hyper-space/time continuum..

We are yet to hear any atheistic perspective. Hopefullandlord martinez, hahn, invite others

johnydon22:
We are yet to hear any atheistic perspective. Hopefullandlord martinez, hahn, invite others

I sure hope named and invitees stick to and within the confines of the topic/heading and the original post

It's impossible for NOTHING to exist!!!!!!
Also, ANYTHING exists in infinite forms!!!!!!!