The supernatural

[heydarian saeed]

To the True Believer -- in the same sense as the True Scotsman -- since there can be no errors in their holy book, if something comes up in science that seems to disagree with it, he has these options:

1. Science is wrong. If not now, it will be proven wrong sometime in the future, or
2. Either science or the holy book has been misinterpreted or mistranslated, and another interpretation or translation will set things right.

If all else fails, then a miracle happens, and you can't prove it didn't happen. The one option he will not consider is that the holy book is written by ancient mortals and can be wrong.

There was a Christian apologist who wrote in the 1930-1950's era, based at the Moody Bible Institute, a fundamentalist think-tank and propaganda mill, Dr. Harry Rimmer. Some of his books are still in print. He is a very engaging writer, using the style of a preacher. Some of his arguments almost make sense; to the religious, they make total sense. But they tend to use quite twisted logic sometimes.

Heydarian's logic reminds me a little of Dr. Rimmer, although they are defending a different god and a different holy book.

Some of Rimmer's book titles: The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, Science and the Genesis Record, Science and Jonah's Whale. In ToE he uses any scientific fact that supports biblical creation as proof of both. Any fact that does not support it is either faulty (see #1 above) or can be twisted to fit (#2).

So biblical "days" might be eras, not 24 hours; forming man from mud and spit might be a non-scientific description of evolution, and Jonah either had God's help and/or SCUBA gear and a very accommodating sea monster. Never considered: these are myths, fairy tales, or express the very limited knowledge of ignorant savages.

I'll give you one of my favorite examples from Rimmer. In the book of Job, God asks Job, (paraphrasing): "Where were you when I created the heaven and earth, when the morning stars sang together and the angels shouted for joy?" (Job 38:7)

Sure, you can chalk this up to poetic metaphor (stars don't sing and who knows what angels can do?), but Rimmer goes further. He points out the characteristics of the magnetic spectrum, where sound and light can be described as differing values of vibrations. Using that interpretation, stars "sing" using light and maybe angels do, too. Of course God knew that, but mortal biblical authors did not, which proves both the scientific value of Job and the supernatural source. Clever!

I'd like to give another example of this thinking method. I was once acquainted with a noted Hebrew scholar, Rabbi Dr. Israel Scharfman. He often said to me, excitedly, "I love science!"

At his invitation, one day he eagerly accepted my challenge. I reminded Dr. Scharfman of the end of Noah's 40 day journey, when he was leaving the Ark. The good Rabbi pulled out his huge Torah, which was printed with English on one page, and the Hebrew version on the facing page so we could both follow along with either language.

We turned to the passage where God gave his promise, sealed by the rainbow, to never flood the Earth again. I asked, "Did rainbows exist before the flood?"

"No, they came into existence only after the flood and His promise."

And you know how white light can be split into a rainbow with a prism?

"Of course. That's science!"

Then how do you explain how all the light from distant stars that we can see with our modern telescopes, arriving to us after thousands or millions of years, still can be split into the rainbow? Did it change in mid-flight? Or did it start out as a rainbow, and the Torah is wrong?

Dr. Scharfman thought about it for a minute. Then he told me,

"God cannot be wrong, but I don't doubt science, either. Therefore, all light must have changed its structure on the way to Earth, at the time of Noah."

Everything is so simple as long as you have faith.

Hi
-Exactly. Unfortunately, you are right about this. But the true believer does not think so. Unless he has prejudices. And this approach is completely wrong. I may not be a true believer, but I do not think so. And I admit my mistakes.
-I do not agree with you in this paragraph. The Qur'an was not recited by ancient humans.The Qur'an is a message sent from God to human beings.
The Prophet only had the duty to tell the revelation to the people. None of the contents of the Qur'an are the words of Muhammad. It's all God's word.
- Our logic is quite simple. And it has no complexity. Maybe you think so. What is your logic? I would like to hear your logic from you. Please tell.
-The content of this paragraph reminds me of a mistake. You are right. If one does not understand the contents of the Qur'an, especially its scientific contents, one "justifies" it. "Justification" is not a good approach. And I do not accept. And I reject.
-The periods of evolution according to the view of the Qur'an have been proven by science. I have stated in full in my article. And I have mentioned the names of respected scientists. And special thanks to these scientists. The Qur'an does not say scientific details. I have already said: the Qur'an is not a scientific encyclopedia. Rather, it is the task of scientists to discover scientific details. And present it as a complete scientific article. And they have. And it is very admirable.
-I have not read this verse from the book of Job. So I do not comment.
- I have not read about the rainbow in the story of Noah in the Bible. So I do not comment. I have told the story of Noah in the Qur'an in this group. And I have answered many of my friends' questions. Whatever science says about the rainbow and everything else is absolutely true. The Qur'an has no opposition to science. And the scientific verses of the Qur'an correspond to science. And is the same.
sincerely

 

[Pixel42]

Hello
God is very clear. Everything in the universe is a sign and work of God. Do not you see? Is it not clear to you?

It is clear to me that the earth is flat, and that the sun goes round the earth.

Just because something seems obvious, it does not necessarily mean that it's true. That's why we had to invent the scientific method - to find out which of the things that seemed obvious to us were actually true, and which weren't.

When we apply the scientific method, we find no evidence whatsoever for any God; there is nothing about the universe which requires the existence of a God.

 

[heydarian saeed]

No! ... the time for such discussions is over.

The only honest thing left for you to do in this thread is to admit that all of published science is against your claims of having evidence of God (evidence from the Quran, according to you) ...

... out all the hundreds of thousands of papers in core science, none of them claim any such evidence of finding God/Allah ... are you, or are you not, going to admit that all of science is against your claims?

Hello philosopher
No. I do not agree with you. Let's talk logically. There are many logical and philosophical reasons that prove God conclusively. There are many scientific signs that prove God. I have told you some of these definite reasons in this group. None of you have yet been able to reject them logically. I have already stated that anyone who can deny God for logical reasons, I accept. But so far no one was able to send in the perfect solution, which is not strange. You did not even answer my two very simple questions! What is your philosophical approach? What are the principles of your logic? I want to argue with you with your own philosophical and logical approach if it is correct. Is this my request from you unreasonable? At least answer this question: Do you accept quantum science?Also, there is always time for logical discussions. We need to Bright our minds to the logical questions we have. Is it good.
Thanks

 

[heydarian saeed]

It is clear to me that the earth is flat, and that the sun goes round the earth.

Just because something seems obvious, it does not necessarily mean that it's true. That's why we had to invent the scientific method - to find out which of the things that seemed obvious to us were actually true, and which weren't.

When we apply the scientific method, we find no evidence whatsoever for any God; there is nothing about the universe which requires the existence of a God.

Hello
Haven't you been for a while? I was worried about your health. Welcome. Your scientific talk is very informative. Thank you
What you are saying here is true. We also fully believe in science. All scientific discoveries say that everything has a cause. The series of causes ends in a final cause. What do you think is the ultimate cause? Or who? Maybe your answer to these two questions will open a clear path for us. Thanks a lot

 

[Pixel42]

Hello
Haven't you been for a while? I was worried about your health. Welcome.

Power cuts and/or no internet for the last week, thanks to three bad storms in three days. All working again now.

All scientific discoveries say that everything has a cause.

Not true. The discovery of quantum fluctuations - events without a cause - was one of the great game changing moments of the early twentieth century.

And of course, as has also been pointed out to you many times, if everything has a cause then God has a cause, so postulating a god gets you no further forward.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Please note that quantum science has answered many of the unknowns of natural physics. On the other hand, it reveals the principle of uncertainty well. You certainly can not reject God. Scientific and laboratory proof of God is our Problem as Muslims. We have not yet been able to prove God with modern science and with a completely scientific article and with objective evidence. These are the forms of Muslims and religious people. Not a form of God. God exists. But I can not prove God to you according to your modern science.
"Failure to scientifically prove things that are not material is not a reason to reject them," says logic and philosophy. Is "science" of matter? If it's matter, prove "science" to me in the lab. "Science and perception" are not material. If it is made of matter, why can no science prove its existence and nature ?!
You can never prove "science and perception" in the laboratory. Because it is not made of material. God is not material either. So we can not prove God in the laboratory. This is quite logical. Of course, I do not know what kind of logic you follow? And you do not answer me either. no problem. I speak to you logically. If one is rational and thinks correctly, one will easily understand which of us and you are right. And we tell the truth.
How do we understand "science and perception"? We know from the signs of science and perception that they exist. We also know God by His signs. And we understand that God exists. This is also quite logical and correct.
You see, our logic is very simple. And it's not complicated at all. Some of you find it complicated. I advise you not to follow suspicion. Think and speak logically.
I have already described the proof of God in detail in Messages 367-394-418-564 and 565 in the first article in this group. No need to repeat. Please read these messages. Some of my dear groupmates pointed out that: I go in a circular motion in presenting my content. I have to apologize to him and say: No.
I do not move in a circle. Rather, it raises some questions and criticisms that some groupmates repeat. And unfortunately, they have either not seen or read the previous articles. I have no choice but to repeat those previous messages. And circular motion occurs. So it's not my fault. Shapes of your approach. Who asked for duplicate content.
Quantum science is a beautiful window to understand problems that can not be proven in the laboratory. Can the science of natural physics justify the laws of quantum physics? No.
Just as Professor Einstein could not understand Professor Bohr.
Therefore, following what I said in the messages mentioned above, we can prove the two issues of "science and perception" and "God" through existential philosophy (using logic-deductive reasoning) as well as parts of quantum science. But this does not fall within the scope of natural sciences and laboratories. Reason-logic-philosophy and parts of quantum science can only examine and prove these issues.
Do you know of any other way to prove this in the laboratory and with objective evidence? Introduce. So we know. And check. It makes me happy.
I have told you this important point many times, and I say it again: "Some matters are not in the realm of the experimental sciences. And they cannot be proved by objective and laboratory evidence. But this is not a logical reason for us to reject God."
If something is not provable in empirical science, it cannot be said to be rejected. There may be other ways to prove this particular issue. Like proving God through reason - logic - philosophy and parts of quantum science that is possible. If you do not agree with these ways, the problem is something else. Because these ways are quite logical.
To solve this problem, you can provide at least two answers:
1. Experimental science has not yet been able to find answers to these questions. Maybe in the future he can answer. And prove it with objective and laboratory evidence. Of course, there is no convincing reason that there is no question of the perception of man and God. And he does not reject God.
2- This issue is not within the scope of experimental science. And these can not be examined with experimental science. Because it is not responsible. Therefore, this issue must be examined in another way. And be answered.
I have also mentioned the following two scientific issues before. Which experimental science has not yet been able to answer. And I asked you if you have a way to prove it. No one offered a logical and convincing answer.
1- How was "Single" made? We know that single came into being out of nothing. And we accept that. But my question to you is, by what mechanism did the single come into being out of nothing? Science has no answer. Hawking was asked this question. He thought and said: he is his creator !! Is this a logical answer? No. God has said the question of Hawking and the answer in the Qur'an 14 centuries ago. Sura 52 verses 35 and 36 Meaning: Were the universes created from nothing? Or are they their own creators? Did they create the heavens and the earth themselves? No. They are not sure. That God created these.
2. "How did inanimate matter come to life?" What mechanism revived inanimate matter? Recent discoveries in the science of abiogenesis have yet to answer this question.
"Science will answer," Only dear Pixel said. I accepted his answer. Because her answer is logical. But as long as science has not answered, then God's claim in the Qur'an is acceptable. And it can not be denied. God says, "I created the single, and I resurrected the inanimate matter." This is God's claim in the Qur'an. If you know science? Or do you know someone? Who created "Single" and "Resurrection of Inanimate Matter"? Please name. And submit your demands. To know. We are waiting for your answer and the answer of science to these two questions. Your inference about God is wrong. God exists. The whole universe is a sign of the existence of God. The whole universe is a beautiful work of God.Although God is not seen. And he can not be proven in the laboratory. But by seeing His signs and works in the whole universe, we can understand the existence of God.
This is not my claim. Logic - reason - philosophy and quantum science prove the existence of God. And I believe in God. And I love him. My faith is based on science and logic.
You see, I speak to you about God in different ways. If these words do not prove God to you - they will not be rejected. So your position must be neutral. And do not make wrong judgments. Please be reasonable.
Thanks

 

[heydarian saeed]

Power cuts and/or no internet for the last week, thanks to three bad storms in three days. All working again now.


Not true. The discovery of quantum fluctuations - events without a cause - was one of the great game changing moments of the early twentieth century.

And of course, as has also been pointed out to you many times, if everything has a cause then God has a cause, so postulating a god gets you no further forward.

Thank God that systemic problems have been solved. And sorry for the three bad storms you were involved in. The important thing is that your health is maintained. And you are healthy.
But I would like you to say what is the cause of God? And where did God come from? Or who created God?
Of course, assuming that God exists. And I accept that God exists. Maybe I think then who created God? Please tell, whats the story of them big puppys Who created God?
Waiting
Thank you

 

[Pixel42]

Thank God that systemic problems have been solved. And sorry for the three bad storms you were involved in. The important thing is that your health is maintained. And you are healthy.
But I would like you to say what is the cause of God? And where did God come from? Or who created God?
Of course, assuming that God exists. And I accept that God exists. Maybe I think then who created God? Please tell, whats the story of them big puppys Who created God?
Waiting
Thank you

We've been through this before, heydarian, but OK, let's do this dance again.

The concept of something existing without having been created is either acceptable or it isn't. If it's acceptable for God to exist without having been created, then it must also be acceptable for the universe to exist without having been created. The two concepts are logically identical. So no need to postulate the existence of a God, "Everything except the universe has a cause" is a valid assumption (or at least as valid as "Everything except God has a cause").

Conversely, if it's not acceptable for the universe to exist without having been created, then it must be equally unacceptable for God to exist without having been created. Again, the two concepts are logically identical. So we're then into an infinite series where the universe was created by God, who was created by a super-God, who was created by a super-duper-God, and so on ad infinitum.

Either you're happy to accept that infinite series, or you're going to arbitrarily decide to terminate it at some random term. If the latter, there's no good reason to choose anything other than the first term, so ""Everything except the universe has a cause" it is. It's the most parsimonious assumption.

 

[heydarian saeed]

The existence of a map of a land is not the same as that country. You all have a plan in mind for God, Islam and the Qur'an. This is just our idea of ​​these three items. I respect your plan for these three items. Good. I also have a plan in mind for this. None of these maps are equal. In this group, everyone picks up and tells his plan about God, Islam and the Qur'an. Well, I also share my perception and mentality for these. But these are just our perceptions of God, Islam and the Qur'an. These are not themselves.
The goal is not for anyone to plot someone else, God, Islam and the Qur'an. The choice is everyone's right. So it is not mandatory. My approach is: God and Islam and the Qur'an are not something that is in my mind. No. Their existence is different from my mentality. I do not mean the book of Islam and the book of the Quran. I mean the real existence of these. I believe that true Islam and the true Qur'an are not practiced in the world. And I am sure that political games are different from Islam and the Qur'an and even God from the truth of these. I am very happy to be in your group. And I will learn something from you. Of course, I also say things. Although my words and yours are sometimes bitter coffee. And should be eaten with cake.Drink comfortably.
I like this approach. To think freely. And let's talk freely. And learn from each other.

 

[Scorpion]

The Qur'an was not recited by ancient humans.The Qur'an is a message sent from God to human beings.
The Prophet only had the duty to tell the revelation to the people. None of the contents of the Qur'an are the words of Muhammad. It's all God's word.

You are 100% wrong, you have it backwards. The Quran is all from Muhammad and God had no part in it. On this I stake the fate of my immortal soul.

 

[heydarian saeed]

We've been through this before, heydarian, but OK, let's do this dance again.

The concept of something existing without having been created is either acceptable or it isn't. If it's acceptable for God to exist without having been created, then it must also be acceptable for the universe to exist without having been created. The two concepts are logically identical. So no need to postulate the existence of a God, "Everything except the universe has a cause" is a valid assumption (or at least as valid as "Everything except God has a cause").

Conversely, if it's not acceptable for the universe to exist without having been created, then it must be equally unacceptable for God to exist without having been created. Again, the two concepts are logically identical. So we're then into an infinite series where the universe was created by God, who was created by a super-God, who was created by a super-duper-God, and so on ad infinitum.

Either you're happy to accept that infinite series, or you're going to arbitrarily decide to terminate it at some random term. If the latter, there's no good reason to choose anything other than the first term, so ""Everything except the universe has a cause" it is. It's the most parsimonious assumption.

Very good. I agree to dance together again. And is good. I see all your words as logical. And I was happy. But my opinion is:
As you said, we enter an infinite series in the hierarchy of causes. Well, we find that irrational. That is, the infinite series has no end point for causal levels. So we are not getting anywhere. And nothing is proven.
So we have to look for the end point. You said that an extraordinarily great god could be the creator of God. The same story is repeated again. And does not prove anything. The justification is that there is a God. That's all the reasons. And is the ultimate cause.
I did not understand your last sentence. Please explain :
"Everything except the universe has a cause" it is.What does everything except the world have a cause? !!

 

[Pixel42]

I did not understand your last sentence. Please explain :
"Everything except the universe has a cause" it is.What does everything except the world have a cause? !!

If your assumption is "Everything has a cause", you get an infinite series - the universe, which was created by God, which was created by super God, which was created by super duper God .....

To avoid that infinite series, you have to terminate it at some point.

If you choose to terminate it at the first term your assumption becomes: "Everything except the universe has a cause".

Terminate it at the second term: "Everything except God has a cause".

Terminate it at the third term: "Everything except super God has a cause".

Terminate it at the fourth term: "Everything except super duper God has a cause".

And so on.

"Everything except the universe has a cause" is logically preferred, because the extra entities required for any other options are unnecessary. It's called Occam's Razor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

 

[IanS]

Hello philosopher
No. I do not agree with you. Let's talk logically. There are many logical and philosophical reasons that prove God conclusively. There are many scientific signs that prove God. I have told you some of these definite reasons in this group. None of you have yet been able to reject them logically. I have already stated that anyone who can deny God for logical reasons, I accept. But so far no one was able to send in the perfect solution, which is not strange. You did not even answer my two very simple questions! What is your philosophical approach? What are the principles of your logic? I want to argue with you with your own philosophical and logical approach if it is correct. Is this my request from you unreasonable? At least answer this question: Do you accept quantum science?Also, there is always time for logical discussions. We need to Bright our minds to the logical questions we have. Is it good.
Thanks

No. Absolutely not. You have completely ruined all attempts at honest discussion here.

All that is left is the fact that all of published science (hundreds of thousands of research studies), all show zero evidence of your God ...

... until you have the honesty to admit that science totally refutes your God beliefs, there will be no more conversation with you.

 

[heydarian saeed]

You are 100% wrong, you have it backwards. The Quran is all from Muhammad and God had no part in it. On this I stake the fate of my immortal soul.

Please speak with the document. From the beginning until now, you have spoken to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) without proof. Change man.
I'm sorry for you

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Your god isn't real.

 

[heydarian saeed]

If your assumption is "Everything has a cause", you get an infinite series - the universe, which was created by God, which was created by super God, which was created by super duper God .....

To avoid that infinite series, you have to terminate it at some point.

If you choose to terminate it at the first term your assumption becomes: "Everything except the universe has a cause".

Terminate it at the second term: "Everything except God has a cause".

Terminate it at the third term: "Everything except super God has a cause".

Terminate it at the fourth term: "Everything except super duper God has a cause".

And so on.

"Everything except the universe has a cause" is logically preferred, because the extra entities required for any other options are unnecessary. It's called Occam's Razor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Hi
Good time
- No. Everything has a cause. The universe also has a cause. The ultimate cause is God alone. The main cause of the universe and everything in it is only God. This is our opinion. Of course, we do not put God in the line of material causes. The ultimate cause is God. Is superior to matter.
- Yes. Everything in the universe has a cause. The whole universe has a cause. We are no exception to the universe. We do not say that everything has a cause except the world. No. Excluding the world from the cause rejects logical reasoning.
- God has no cause. God is the end point of the causal hierarchy. God is the ultimate cause. So he himself has no reason. If there is a cause, the cause hierarchy continues again, and this is impossible. And is rejected.
- Let me give you an example for the previous article: Consider handwriting and pen writing. What is the reason for the pen writings? Is it from the pen? Or is it hand? Or do we create it by seeing the writings? Which? The writings of the pen, according to the hierarchy of reason, refer to the human thought that wrote it. The ratio of the author's human thought to the hand and pen and writing is the same. Is not that so? That is, human thinking is the main and final cause of writings. And human thinking is superior to all other minor causes (pen-hand). And is their ultimate cause. God's relationship with the universe and all beings in it is the same. And so it is. It is superior to all material causes.You teach very well, Master. Of course, I apologize for being a stubborn student. Forgive my arrogance. I love you.
Thanks

 

[heydarian saeed]

Dear Pixel and all teammates
Do you believe in the principle of "Choice is not impossible without a reason."? I would like you to briefly explain to me what this principle says.Thanks a lot

 

[Pixel42]

Hi
Good time
- No. Everything has a cause. The universe also has a cause. The ultimate cause is God alone.

If everything has a cause then God has a cause. What caused God?

- God has no cause. God is the end point of the causal hierarchy. God is the ultimate cause. So he himself has no reason

So when you said "Everything has a cause" you were lying. What you really believe is "Everything except God has a cause".

But if you're going to allow a single exception to your assumption, then you don't need to postulate a God at all. Just make the universe the exception. "Everything except the universe has a cause" is not just as valid an assumption as yours, it is in fact a superior one as it doesn't require an additional, unnecessary, entity.

If there is a cause, the cause hierarchy continues again, and this is impossible. And is rejected.

But you're already continuing the cause hierarchy unnecessarily by going to the second term before terminating the series when you could just as easily have terminated it at the first term. I reject your second term, God, for the same reason you reject all the subsequent ones.

Let me give you an example for the previous article: Consider handwriting and pen writing. What is the reason for the pen writings? Is it from the pen? Or is it hand? Or do we create it by seeing the writings? Which? The writings of the pen, according to the hierarchy of reason, refer to the human thought that wrote it. The ratio of the author's human thought to the hand and pen and writing is the same. Is not that so?

That is, human thinking is the main and final cause of writings. And human thinking is superior to all other minor causes (pen-hand). And is their ultimate cause. God's relationship with the universe and all beings in it is the same. And so it is. It is superior to all material causes.

This is essentially the argument from design, which was refuted by Darwin.

A watch looks like it was deliberately designed and the only alternative explanation of it is that it was assembled by pure chance, so yes, it's reasonable to deduce that it was designed. At first glance it appears equally obvious that a crab, say, was also deliberately designed, but crabs, unlike watches, can reproduce. So for the crab there is a third option: it could be (and indeed is) the result of 4 billion years of evolution by natural selection. Not chance. Not deliberate design. Evolution.

So just because something looks like it is the product of conscious intent, that doesn't necessarily mean it is. We have cognitive biases built into the way in which our brains work which cause us to see signals in the noise even when there is, in fact, only noise. They're the reason why the scientific method had to be invented, and why it's a better way of determining the true nature of the universe than simply noting what seems obvious to you, and just assuming it is correct.

There is no scientific justification for your insistence on adding God into the cause hierarchy. It gives no additional information, explanation or understanding, it actually makes matters worse by introducing an additional , unnecessary, entity about which we can never know anything as it (unlike the universe) cannot be studied. You introduce it only because it's what you want to believe. That is not a good reason.

 

[Pixel42]

Dear Pixel and all teammates
Do you believe in the principle of "Choice is not impossible without a reason."? I would like you to briefly explain to me what this principle says.Thanks a lot

I'm not sure what you're asking, or why it's relevant.

Conscious entities make choices, and they usually have a reason for those choices. People, and to a varying degree many other animals, are conscious entities which make choices for reasons. There are almost certainly complex lifeforms which have evolved on other worlds which are also conscious entities.

Nature is not a conscious entity. It's a set of laws. The words 'choice' and 'reason' do not apply to those laws. Gravity, natural selection, radioactive decay ... these are not conscious processes. They are not guided or planned. They just happen, as described by the laws that govern their behaviour.

 

[IanS]

Amongst a huge mass of other reasons (all of which are completely bogus), Heydarian seems to think that the universe must have what he calls a “cause”, and that every possible “cause” must itself have another cause … whereby he concludes that it would mean an infinite chain of suggested “causes”, and he believes the only way out of that infinite chain is to claim that God was the uncased “cause” of the Big Bang.

That is of course a belief shared by, or in fact claimed by, almost all committed Christians as well as Muslims. They cannot understand how the Big Bang happened without a God as the cause.

But I already explained that to heydarian many pages back in some considerable detail. That is – I already explained how the current ideas and published papers have for the last 30 years or so, mostly been focusing in on the fact that according the QM the universe must always exist in some energetic state or other.

I am not going to spell the whole thing out again for heydarian, but what QM shows is that it is not possible to have a state of existence which is truly literally “nothing” (and that would also seem obvious even just on a simple philosophical basis). According to QM the very least that is possible is always what is called the “Vacuum Energy”.

So what happens to create our universe via a Big Bang, is simply that quantum field fluctuations within that vacuum energy eventually lead to one or more big bang processes, producing at least our universe if not more likely a multitude of universes (i.e. a “Multiverse”).

If you want to know the details of that, then take a look back at my previous post.

So the answer is that the universe does not “cause itself” (as many theists sneeringly, but ignorantly, ask). Instead inescapable random quantum fluctuations of the Vacuum Energy Density simply lead inevitably to one or more Big Bangs … the Vacuum Energy does not need any prior cause, because it must always exist as the very least possible energy state.

If anyone asks if that description is a certainty as known fact, then the answer is that that is a stupid question, because as far as we know from QM there is no such thing as any actual certainty of fact for anything in the natural world around us (i.e. “the universe”).

And if heydarian thinks that description is hard to understand as likely true/correct, then he should ask himself what on earth he thinks “nothing” actually is? He should ask himself how a thing called “nothing” could possibly ever exist? ... how could "no thing" be an actual "thing"!?

It really isn't that difficult to understand.