"Atheism's universe"

[Kurieuo]

If something exists, something's always existed. God by definition is said to be that "something" possessing aseity (self-existence). To to ask the question what existed before the something that self-exists is nonsense and shows misunderstanding. And, if one says it is illogical to believe something has always existed in and if itself, they must first deny anything exists.

[dand]

The Atheistic view of the universe is that it started from a singularity, not from nothing.
No one knows Why the singularity started to expand or where the singularity came from.

it's true

[Kenny]

If something exists, something's always existed. God by definition is said to be that "something" possessing aseity (self-existence). To to ask the question what existed before the something that self-exists is nonsense and shows misunderstanding. And, if one says it is illogical to believe something has always existed in and if itself, they must first deny anything exists.

True; many believers perceive God as always existing. But it doesn’t have to be God that has always existed, many non believers believe energy has always existed. Such ideas are even supported by the law of “Conservation of Energy”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Ken

[Kurieuo]

If something exists, something's always existed. God by definition is said to be that "something" possessing aseity (self-existence). To to ask the question what existed before the something that self-exists is nonsense and shows misunderstanding. And, if one says it is illogical to believe something has always existed in and if itself, they must first deny anything exists.

True; many believers perceive God as always existing. But it doesn’t have to be God that has always existed, many non believers believe energy has always existed. Such ideas are even supported by the law of “Conservation of Energy”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Many non-believers do believe energy has always existed, but is it nonetheless contingent i.e., does energy self-exist or depend upon something other for its existence? Self-existence is a different quality from eternality. Something can be eternal but not self-exist, whereas what we'd like to know is what/who has always existed and only depends upon itself.

Furthermore, many just automatically assume that matter is dependant upon energy, indeed many who deny God's existence believe the whole universe is reducible to energy and even arose from zero energy (negative and positive energy). So then, let me introduce the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.

Matter has shown itself at quantum level to not be predicated upon energy, but rather upon mathematical potentialities - a wave function which collapses upon observation causing physical particles to exist. This suggests that math is more foundational than energy. If so, then energy doesn't self-exist.

[Kenny]

If something exists, something's always existed. God by definition is said to be that "something" possessing aseity (self-existence). To to ask the question what existed before the something that self-exists is nonsense and shows misunderstanding. And, if one says it is illogical to believe something has always existed in and if itself, they must first deny anything exists.

True; many believers perceive God as always existing. But it doesn’t have to be God that has always existed, many non believers believe energy has always existed. Such ideas are even supported by the law of “Conservation of Energy”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Many non-believers do believe energy has always existed, but is it nonetheless contingent i.e., does energy self-exist or depend upon something other for its existence? Self-existence is a different quality from eternality. Something can be eternal but not self-exist, whereas what we'd like to know is what/who has always existed and only depends upon itself.

Why does it matter if it is self existent? If A, B, & C always existed, but A’s existence depends on B&C, and B’s existence depends on A&C, and C’s existence depends on A&B, why isn’t that good enough? Why must something be self existing and depending upon nothing else?

[Kurieuo]

Why does it matter (pun)? Same reason it matters if something came later in time. If energy isn't self-existing then there is something more foundational than it, which moves it, gives it form as this energy or that, and hence matter itself. Ergo Materialism is falsified.

[Kenny]

Why does it matter (pun)? Same reason it matters if something came later in time. If energy isn't self-existing then there is something more foundational than it, which moves it, gives it form as this energy or that, and hence matter itself. Ergo Materialism is falsified.

I’m not getting this. If we use the scenario I mentioned earlier with multiple things having always existed, each dependent on the other; why is this impossible?

[Kurieuo]

Why does it matter (pun)? Same reason it matters if something came later in time. If energy isn't self-existing then there is something more foundational than it, which moves it, gives it form as this energy or that, and hence matter itself. Ergo Materialism is falsified.

I’m not getting this. If we use the scenario I mentioned earlier with multiple things having always existed, each dependent on the other; why is this impossible?

What are these multiple things, or "emsemble" perhaps that has always existed?

You were saying "energy" just previous, like this is foundational to everything else. Well, what are the constituents of energy? When energy moves this way and that, what is doing the moving? Furthermore, everything within this ensemble must always exist, none can not exist and come into existence later. Otherwise the ensemble falls apart (similar logic here applies to Trinitiarian theology and understanding God).

[Kenny]

Why does it matter (pun)? Same reason it matters if something came later in time. If energy isn't self-existing then there is something more foundational than it, which moves it, gives it form as this energy or that, and hence matter itself. Ergo Materialism is falsified.

I’m not getting this. If we use the scenario I mentioned earlier with multiple things having always existed, each dependent on the other; why is this impossible?

What are these multiple things, or "emsemble" perhaps that has always existed?

You were saying "energy" just previous, like this is foundational to everything else. Well, what are the constituents of energy? When energy moves this way and that, what is doing the moving? Furthermore, everything within this ensemble must always exist, none can not exist and come into existence later. Otherwise the ensemble falls apart (similar logic here applies to Trinitiarian theology and understanding God).

You are asking a lot of questions I don’t have answers to; there is much about the Universe that not even the most brilliant of scientists don’t know about. My point is, the idea that something has always existed makes sense to me.
The idea that this “something” can only be 1; not multiple,
The idea that this “something” must be greater (whatever that means) than whatever it offsprings,
The idea that this “something” must have all the attributes of Yahweh,
None of those things make sense to me. If they make sense to you perhaps you can explain why.