6

Look at what Peter van Inwagen says in his book "metaphysics" (an excellent read) on this issue. He accuses physicists who claim to have solved the philosophical problem of origin or creation of conflating the notion of "philosophical nothingness" with "physical nothingness". The problem with many answers from physics, as @infatuated pointed out, is they ...


6

There is no such thing as the cosmological argument. Rather, there is a class of arguments that share similar themes and (sometimes) logical structure, but that rely on different premises that are all referred to as cosmological arguments. For instance, a cosmological argument defended by Aquinas depends on the impossibility of an essentially ordered ...


5

I'm inclined to interpret primitive in the "not developed or derived from anything else" sense: individuals can come to their world-views based almost solely on there own personal experience, with only limited outside intellectual/cultural influence. This can be contrasted with "non-primitive" cosmologies that exist in the context of a structured ...


5

Krauss' definition of nothing is the result of the allergy contemporary physicists get from philosophy; the philosopher David Albert posted a crushing criticism of the book in response and started a terrible fight: Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical ...


4

Rex Kerr's reply is exactly right. This here just to further amplify some points. Before I start, two references with actual good information that I recommend anyone really interested in understanding this topic should try to look at. First, a beautiful review of why physicists are interested in Grand Unified Theories is in Edward Witten's talk notes Quest ...


4

It's really much simpler than this. Natural philosophers, and after them natural scientists, noticed that some easily-expressed mathematical relationships held between various measurable quantities. f1 + f2 = 0, for instance--Newton's Third law. Among other things, physicists noticed that two apparently distinct phenomena, electricity and magnetism, were ...


4

The weak anthropic principle essentially states that when we observe the universe, we have 100% probability of observing a universe in which it is possible for humans to exist - because we already know that we do. If the universe is such that it is impossible for humans to exist, we obviously wouldn't be here to do the observing! This is sometimes ...


4

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/ gives a short overview of the topic. What is apparent is that there is no simple agreed definition of the concept of nothingness. And this is not surprising, since neither is there agreement on how to metaphysically describe the world itself. (Some claim that the world is a collection of facts, others that it's ...


4

Many ancient models of cosmology had a flat earth, but not in the sort of uninformed way that people imagine when they say things like, "Well, they used to think the Earth was flat!" Well, yes and no. From the earliest Greek cosmology that I know of, the shape of the earth was a topic of debate and one that great thinkers understood was an open question. ...


3

I think that's a pretty bad presentation of the anthropic principle on his part. But I wouldn't say the flaw rests in just saying he can lop off the first claim. It seem more flawed in that he's misunderstood the entire idea of the anthropic principle in presenting it that way. I take it the anthropic principle is not one thing is coincidentally right for ...


3

Regarding your statement about Buddhism I would refer you to this passage from the Pāli Canon, (the most complete extant early Buddhist canon). In contradition to your statement, it shows that Buddha expressly does not speculate on cosmology. "So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. ...


3

Often, the universe is considered to be everything by definition. Physicists would use this kind of definition but make it weaker by speaking of the observable universe, i.e. the part who's existence we are sure about. A) Universe: Everything there is B) Observable universe: Everything that can be known about (right now) If the first case, there ...


3

You mention the big bang, which would place the question into the realm of physics and not philosophy. There are various answers to the question, "Where did the universe come from?" in physics but I believe in general these assume it did not come from nothing (excepting the quantum definition of "nothing", which is perhaps a deflection of your question). ...


3

I think what he means by Nothing is the quantum fluctuations that were enough to cause the big bang... He just avoids the need of a creator by introduction of quantum fluctuations... Though it is a pretty heavy subject to digest, you can have a look at this lecture of his https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo ... Hope I helped you.


3

There are problems with even trying to ask the question. We form our ideas of causes and antecedent conditions from the flow of time in the normal universe. It's not terribly hard to envision cause-free structures (like a random graph), or structures where it is hard to find an analog of causality. So if you get too meta with the question, you first need ...


3

Has religion adapted to modern cosmology and if so how? Allow me to play devils advocate for a moment... In modern cosmology, the big bang theory is widely accepted as an explanation of the beginning, evolution, and current form of the observable universe. Prior to its ascent as a theory, scientists and natural philosophers (going back at least to ...


3

I wonder how existing major religions follow modern cosmology. The question is excessively broad, even when restricted to major religions. E.g., Christianity is a "major religion", but within its different denominations, and even within the members of a particular denomination, there are different positions with respect to the conclusions reached by modern ...


3

How can God be temporal if he never began? I share belief in the following various premises with some other philosophers, although I may be the only one who believes all of them simultaneously: The Universe is all of space and time and their contents If the Universe is time, then it is eternal. It was never created or caused by anything. It simply exists, ...


3

I don't think it's contradictory to say that timeless God exists temporally wherever time exists. According to Christians, God has overcome weirder transitions than that: omnipresent God became monopresent at the incarnation of Christ. Likewise, I think that it's not contradictory to end the causal chain at God. Of course it's true that causal logic ...


3

Couldn't MWI predict universes with different fundamental laws of physics (as a level-4 multiverse hypothesis would do, like string theory)? No. To understand why, you need to really grok what MWI is. You seem to be under the impression that MWI posits that each time there's a quantum event of a certain type, the universe actually splits into two or more ...


3

Philosophy of QM is a large subfield of philosophy of science. Philosophy of cosmology is smaller but still significant. Here are some relevant Stanford Encyclopedia articles: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/


3

Consider the Elephantidae Testudinata Theory of creation: About 15 billion years ago, after eternally climbing an infinitely deep stack of turtles, an elephant eventually reached the top. The enormity of that accomplishment caused our universe to spring into being. This is a non-scientific cosmology theory, because there is no physical means by which ...


3

here is a very condensed summary of the process of getting the scientific community to seriously entertain your new theory. you must familiarize yourself with everything already accomplished in that field of study. If you cannot demonstrate your knowledge & mastery of that field, no one in it will have any reason to take you seriously. And whatever your ...


3

Very few fragments extant. The source is Aristotle, De Caelo, II, 13: [295b10-296a21] there are some, Anaximander, for instance, among the ancients, who say that the earth keeps its place because of its indifference. Motion upward and downward and sideways were all, they thought, equally inappropriate to that which is set at the centre and indifferently ...


2

What is the purpose of the universe? If the universe is eternal and infinite, then its primary purpose is simply to exist. [Assuming God said], I want to create humans, because x. (What is x?) Consider the purest, noblest characteristics of human beings, our capacities for Intelligence which leads us to wisdom Emotion which leads us to love If God ...


2

When looking at a physical constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant we find it consist of a number part and a unit of measure. The value of the number being the result of experimental observation, and the magnitude determined by the unit of measure. The unit used is arbitrary defined and it's function is to denote and categorize the constant. ...


2

Their was an truly amazing article in the August 2011 edition of the Scientific American that addresses the issue of the multiverse. In this article the noted and internationally famous cosmologist George Ellis calls into questions the validity of trying to explain away the apparent fine tuning of the universe with a call to Multiverses. A few quotes. “...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible