Response to Zul007:
"but who created him, or his universe? "
You ask this question under the assumption that causality and time interact the same in and/or with the hypothetical extra-universal entity and/or
other universe as they do in our universe. This is a mistake as time is certainly not a constant in this universe and, according to current
scientific models, at one point did not exist in this universe...mostly because at one point this universe didn't exist either.
"1) There is an infinitely small chance that something will come out of nothing, so that in the beginning there was nothing and since time didn't
exist either, that infinitely small chance occurs, and so POOF we are here."
This is a logically complex statemet; let's break it down.
"There is an infinitely small chance that something will come out of nothing"= Proposition A
Therefore
"In the beginning there was nothing"
First, what you have proposed is a nonsequitor for an answer. What you have given is a second proposition. So:
"In the beginning there was nothing"= Proposition B
Cutting out a more specific restatement of Proposition B (time didn't exist either) we result in another proposition rather than a conclusion. I
have reworded it slightly but only so that it is a stand-alone statement (a proposition).
"an infinitely small chance occurs given a state of nothingness"= Propsosition C
You then come to a conclusion:
"POOF we are here."= Conclusion D
We must now look at the validity of your conclusions.
Proposition A for all intents and purposes is correct. It is irrational with our current understanding of the laws of physics for something to come
from nothing.
Proposition B is also consistent with our current scientific understanding of the universe according to string theory.
Proposition C is questionable. If you had said, "An infinitely small chance occurs given a period of infinite time," I would be, and how
appropriately termed, bound by mathematics to agree. However, in a state of nothingness, by definition, nothing can occur. Preposition does not hold
up to logical analysis.
You then make a conclusion: Conclusion D.
Your arguement must first be made to logically flow so we must omit Proposition C from the equation:
Proposition A is true, and Proposition B is true, therefore Conclusion D is true.
rephrased
"There is an infinitely small chance that something will come out of nothing, and in the beginning there was nothing therefore, POOF we are
here."
Without the validity of Proposition C, this argument ends in a nonsequitor and, due to a fatal lack of truth, falls apart.
2) The universe always was, is, and will be. By this I mean that the big crunch is the correct answer and that once it happens the universe will just
cycle again.
Again, logical breakdown.
"The universe always was, is, and will be."= Propositions A B and C respectively.
"The big crunch is the eventuality of the universe."= Conclusion D.
Even assuming Propositions A B and C to be true, Conclusion D is not the only mathematically possible conclusion for the "fate" of our universe (and
logically, is yet another nonsequitor). Actually, it's not even the one supported by our current scientific model of the cosmos. I believe this
site will help:
www.superstringtheory.com...
Item 2 Status: False.
3) Sometime down the timeline an intelligence is born/created in our universe (or some universe) that for all intents and purposes is so powerful that
it can exist outside the boundaries of time and dimensions and can create universes (since it can exists outside of the time dimension boundries it
can create the initial universe).
Your original statement was that there were three things that we could say, at this point of our knowledge, about "how we all got here". Item 3 is
purely an assumption. There are other assumptions about how the universe was created that also fit the current scientific model. It should be noted
that this is an assumption, not a conclusion; it is a preposition, a belief, not knowledge.
I'm not sure of the goal of your post; I just thought that it would be an interesting exercise to logically evaluate it.