Over some 3 and a half billion years, our planet has transformed itself from a lifeless mass of rock into a veritable metabolising organic matrix in which countless replicating patterns swarm about the Earth's surface, each pattern or organism an informational expression of Natural Intelligence. Yet, like the hour hand of a clock, science has failed to see the contextually directed movement of Natural Intelligence, claiming instead that evolution is essentially a pointless and mindless process. But this can only be a subjective inference likely drawn according to the perceived duration over which evolution works, a duration so great that the intelligence operating over such spans remains all but invisible. If we instead imagine viewing a time-lapse film of Gaia wherein 3 and a half billion years of information-gaining evolution are compressed into but one intense second, then modern electronic human culture and human consciousness explodes instantaneously into existence, bursting forth out of the earth's ocean of elemental constituents. This awesome pattern of self-organisation can be no mere accident. To those who would still scoff at such an assertion, I can only ask them this: if the aforementioned capacity of the Universe does not suggest a great intelligence at work then what sort of Universe would?- from the psilocybin solution

i find simon's musings on this topic very mind opening, this also comes to mind

yup. And as you said, a major component in this is personal experience with this intelligence (and taking into account the experiences of countless others)

What I meant is that it is impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist. How, just to take an example, are you going to proceed to prove that there is not an invisible flying teapot orbiting earth? Or that I can’t fly? These things are simply impossible to prove.

So I realize I haven’t disproven intelligent design and fine-tuning in our universe, but I never tried to either

Your definition of intelligence as linked:

To proceed, let’s talk about the definition you're working with. I assume you are working with the first part of it, that is the ""faculty of understanding" and not the other definitions of the varieties of the word. Note here that in this very definition there must be included an understander, i.e someone or something that understands. Taking this definition to for example natural selection or fusion, it is raised over pretty much any doubt that these processes doesn't need an "understander" in order to happen. When you say that natural selection is intelligent, you are saying that it has a "faculty of understanding", which is just absurd and doesn’t make any sense. Natural selection is after all, by definition, a "dumb" process. There is nothing in fusion, natural selection or any of the mentioned processes that require any form of intelligence under all normal definitions of this word (I discuss this definition below). These things are simply "dumb" processes following a very spesific and well defined set of rules, and defining them to be intelligent just removes us away from any advantagious meaning of the word - without changing the fact that the universe at large is not intelligent under normal definitions.

Moreover, I would like to push the more official definition of intelligence into our discussion here as mentioned above, from the Oxford Dictionaries: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". This definition is a lot more spesific (and correct), and it really highlights the problem with calling natural selection, fusion or any of the other processes I have mentioned for you intelligent. In all I feel you are basing yourself very much on Equivocation in this discussion.

Similar to this, you are first stating that Self-Organization is intelligent, and when I point out to you that appareant patterns can and will arise out of randomness, and that they are maintained and strenghtened through for example natural selection, you proceed on to say that Self-Organization is just one of the many characteristics of intelligence so you can keep your conclusion. But that something intelligent have Self-Organization doesn't mean that something that is Self-Organized is intelligent. To assert so is a thought mistake called Affirming the consequent

You seem to refer to scientists claiming things that fits your perspective alot, but it is not unproblematic. That a hundred scientists mean this or that is totally neglectable in this context. That a small promille of a promille of all that claim they are scientists (which is not a protected title btw) assert something silly doesn't mean that it is reasonable to assume they are right.

As for the whole dark matter thing, I must take the time to rephrase myself with more correct terminology. Gravity is not a proven theory either, but it fits so incredibly well with data, is falsifiable and have never been shown to be wrong. Similar it is with dark matter, but the main issue as I see it is that there is no consensus yet on what exactly this matter is. What it says is that the application of general theory of relativity with just the mass we can observe doesn’t fit with the movement of galaxies as we see it with our instruments. Once we put into extra mass, the results are perfect, which strongly suggests that this mass exists. We don’t know for sure, perhaps it’s the theory of general relativity that isn’t accurate enough! Anyway, I don’t think dark matter is that relevant for us.

Poor design is a clear argument against design. If something or someone is capable of creating the universe and all intricate details within it, it is reasonable to assume that such a force or such a being (especially if everything is fine-tuned) wouldn’t for example put the light sensitive cells on the retina the wrong way in mammals. "… it's not just bad design, it's the design of a complete idiot.” – Richard Dawkins. This is however, very strong evidence that eyes were developed through unintelligent natural selection. The many other examples of poor design also speaks to this.

You want me to drop the whole “need” type of arguments, and I agree I overused it in the last post. However, the fact that we don’t need to insert your claims as assumptions to explain our universe speaks to how unlikely your claims are. Occam’s Razor shows us both theoretically and empirically that an easier model with fewer factors that explains a phenomenon is more likely. Concrete example; it is far more likely that you left your keys somewhere yourself, than that a flying pig came through the chimney and placed them in another pocket, even though you can’t in theory refute the pig hypothesis.

It is no more a conjecture that our data supports atheism any more than it is conjecture that our data shows a lacking ability to fly in pigs. There is nothing to support or suggest intelligent design and fine-tuning in our universe, it’s just as simple as that. Thus it is no reason to assume intelligent design and fine-tuning, but many reasons to assume it is not, and again Occam’s Razor comes in here. Furthermore, I have already shown how there appears to be no fine tuning in for example the relative strengts of gravity and electromagnetism, and I have also said that the many parameters of physics can vary greatly without making life as we know it impossible. Also, our constants are not fine-tuned either, because they are totally dependent on the units used. If you are not persuaded by concrete arguments and examples from physics, then so be it. At least I have tried!



Classical quantum woo woo. This is a non sequitur. Why should wavefunction-collapse imply consciousness and understanding?


What does chaos theory have to do with this? The point is that there is little reason to assume that cells are conscious little intelligent entities. We can’t disprove this alltogether of course, but there is nothing to point in this direction. That cause-effect doesn’t disprove intelligence is right, but that is somehow implies intelligence is just affirming the consequent again.



Obviously wrong. That complex things can arise out of simple and well defined rules doesn’t speak to intelligence at all. If it does, then what exactly is intelligent? Who or what is the understander? You can’t just claim something like this out of the blue. That something can evolve itself to be intelligent, such as is the case with us, is a whole other matter altogether of course, but then again this isn’t what you’re saying.


Again, here it seems you are in a sort of "attack" at science. I don’t know your reasons, but I assume you use this argument, and varieties of it, to somehow give some credence to your claims. I have commented on this before several times, but I will do it again in the hope that you will not ignore it this time.

Essentially your argument is that science (and/or scientists themselves) have been wrong before, and therefore could be wrong again – also about the issues we discuss. This is absolutely true. But here I must say that despite public opinion, science is not about absolutes and definite proofs. This is a myth, and I am sure you know this yourself. Science as a whole and as a method deals with the most plausible, probable and likely explanations based on whatever theoretical foundation and observations that are available at any given time. Science makes the explicit commitment that any “scientific truth” is provisional, and even though something might be shown to be false or inaccurate tomorrow, they may be the best we have today. The fact that scientific theories can’t be said to 100% true doesn’t mean that 1) any idea could be a viable alternative to the scientific theory and 2) that all existing ideas are equally valid and equally true. This is basic critical thinking.

To argue that science is not a hundred percent true is fine and healthy, but to use this as an argument to somehow give validity to any unfounded idea is simply fallacious. Science is self-policing in that fraud, error and mistakes will eventually (sometimes it can take long, other times not) be discovered and fixed. Furthermore, I would like to highlight something else absurd about this commonly used argument; it criticizes science for prior mistakes – but uses the new knowledge produced by science to attack earlier scientific ideas. See the problem?

For your claims to be a viable source of knowledge, your claims requires its own merits.

Now, I realize that some of the things discussed are issues in spirituality and mysticism as well, but when claiming intelligent design and fine-tuning for example, these are very specific claims about the nature of our universe. This is a very specific claim that physics can deal with, and that I have dealt with through physics and science. Fine-tuning and intelligent design are simply poor hypothesis, and are completely unfounded.


As much as these things are very interesting, they don’t speak for intelligence at all, because this is not what these articles discuss. It doesn’t fall into your “faculty of understanding” either.

Anyway, I think I have said most of what there is to say for me. Hope it is some food for thought for you, Hyperspace Fool. Or to others.

Stay well HF, no hard feelings

CItta are you looking to find the truth or are you looking to convince others you are right?

Where are you coming from with this is all I'm really asking? What do you hope to gain from it?


Peace

I am looking to convince others that certain claims about our universe are unfounded, or more correctly show why they are unfounded. What they do with this information I guess is eventually up to them. Matter of fact is that we can't just claim anything and expect it to be right, or expect that no one points out why this is necessary not the case, or probably not the case at all. You as a scientist I think should know and understand this.

I am keeping myself to the most honest "truths" that we seem to have about our universe, mainly what the progress of science reveals at the time being. Certain things cannot be answered yet by science, perhaps never, and I realize this. But science has something to say when people claim fine-tuning and intelligent-design in our universe, and I am here to represent that. In fact, intelligent design and fine-tuning are pretty concrete claims about stuff that physics and science deals with, and physics is my field.

As I said in my post above, I am not trying to disprove fine-tuning or intelligent design, as it would be impossible. I am trying to show why these claims are unlikely to be true with our current picture of the universe. Perhaps they will prove to be true someday, though I doubt it, and if so is the case I will humbly step down from my position and say I was wrong. I would actually be thrilled if that was what the evidence consistently would show us.

Another one of my motivations is that I like to discuss with Hyperspace Fool about issues we both care about, though from different perspectives. I actually learn alot, I am being challenged as well and so I get carried along.

I have seen you as well joedirt, point out certain things when people claim something around on the forum. So I may ask you the same question, why point it out? When someone comes with incorrect claims about what your field of biology currently states is the case, why do you care to point it out? To put it to the extreme, the question can also be why even educate people?

I mean no harm here, joedirt, and I sincerely hope you don't think I do. It's just debate, and people do it all the time debating politics, debating philosophy, debating science, debating hallucinogens and the list goes on forever. What is wrong with that? =)

Also, I guess I am quite a geek

love seeing posts phrasing it better than i!

No worries. I didn't take it wrong at all and I'm not offended in the least! To answer your question I have certainly found myself in endless debates, even here on the nexus. however I'm starting to realize that after making a point once or twice there is usually little good in making it further.

The problem is that you are trying to convince people that you think spirituality, etc is unlikely, but it's only unlikely from your view point. The people you are trying to enlighten are scratching their heads and saying it's WAY more obvious that this all came form something.


I mean what is the light you see in your head when you take DMT or when you dream?
What are black holes?
Why do electrons collapse into matter when we observe them?

Why do we have free will when every single thing science has to say about molecular dynamics suggests that it should all be completely pre determined. I state this as someone who has worked on molecular dynamic forcefields. If materialism is right then we should be able to rewind the big bang to it's exact initial state.... If it started over again from the exact same initial conditions then the all laws of thermodyamics, entropy, all the equations for motions including schrodingers equations state that the universe would unfold EXACTLY as it did before. Does that even remotely seem reasonable to you? That all human actions has been utterly predetermined?

Do you have free will. If you say yes then by extension you are saying that there is at a minimum exists some 'force' beyond this physical plane that allows us to manipulate matter via our will power and to overcome the laws of thermodynamics. There is absolutely no way to logically wiggle out of that.

So science can't even answer the most basic of philosophical questions like those above...at least not yet. Thus, science isn't even remotely close to having anything worth saying about creationism. Science say's there is evolution and without a doubt evolution is real. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't a creator any more than it means there was.

Instead let's just use logical deduction. We are here aren't we? All of this 'what-ever-the-fuck" it is, is here isn't it? Were did it come from?

Well creation arising from some mathematical null set on a chalk board just doesn't scream "truth" to the ast majority of people on this planet. And I doubt it ever will....because from my point of view that exact opposite is dead obvious.

I mean we do exist. I have free will and can move matter against the normal physical laws. Seems likely there is something beyond me.

You see my point? From some vantage points it's nigh impossible that there couldn't be something beyond all of this...I literally feel it's a 100% certainty. I'm that convinced of it....and I'm convinced from looking at the same scientific data that you have. Isn't that interesting.

It is all a POV. You openly admit you can't disprove creationism, and everyone openly admits they can't scientifically prove that the spiritual realm exists. Thus every one of us has to either accept what someone else tells us to believe, or make our own logic deductions about it.

I can pretty much guarantee you that you haven't changed a single person's mind on this subject...and that was your stated mission so to speak.

I'm not bothered by what you are saying or anything like that. I just don't think you are achieving your goals.

Peace.

It does to me. I've been telling people this for years.

I do not believe in -true- free will.

If you could have a hypothetical machine outside the bounds of the universe, that could know the exact state of the universe (all laws of physics, location of all matter, and state of all energy with 100% accuracy), you could rewind and fast forward.

Without a functionality in the universe's laws that permits -true- randomness (not just apparent random due to an immense number of variables), there is no such thing as free will.

Even outside interference from hypothetical other dimensions/universes, would still be bound by a superset of laws, that, without a "random" function, would still be entirely predictable; simply requiring a larger state data and ruleset to be known to predict.

A God, Soul, Spirit, etc, is not required for free will, and even it's existence does not prove free will. A true "random" law/function will allow free will.

Prove something can be purely random and follow no law at all, then you can prove "free will".

Oh, and as for any argument for intelligent design; they all irk me immensely. The whole recursion of what created the intelligence to create the intelligent design, makes it hard to swallow.

Occam's Razor comes to mind. Simpler and more probable to assume the universe just is, which we have "evidence" of, rather than the existence of a hypothetical intelligence far more complex than the universe as it is already, "just being" and subsequently creating the universe.

So you claim there is no free will.

A body at rest will stay at rest until acting on by an outside force.

When you go to sleep at night you lay down and quit moving. What wakes up and makes you go in the morning. The chemical in your brain sure as hell don't have enough mass to thrust your body out of bed...but will power does. Free will.

Peace



I'll be sure to give everyone the memo that you irritated

If I have to follow Occam's Razor (which I consider a tool for human scale, not for the degree of complexity of the whole cosmos)... I can also realize that, when trying to reduce the number of agents in the whole system, if I discard the possibility of an universe that was detonated by some force (call it whatever you like, but the concept of intelligence that usually appears in these debates seems terribly anthropocentric to me) I will be left between the alternatives of a universe collapsing out of nothing, or an eternal universe, cyclic or not. Those alternatives do not simplify our human understanding of it either. Seems that we have to work beyond the classic reason tools to make some progress, don't we?

And the discussion of randomness and unpredictabilty, there's probably no point in trying to discuss it if you are a firm believer in the strong AI. Sincerely, good luck with your reverse-engineering quest. You are aiming high, I just hope that if you ever come across good ideas and tools that do not seem to fit your rules for admission, you are able to reconsider them.

Lack of understanding of the chemical processes does not make it magic.

You could ask a doctor to find out a little more how that process works mechanically

My knowledge of it, is only the high level concepts, which I could be mistaken in some ways if I tried to describe. I do know it's all mechanical though in that particular instance.

Existence of the universe itself is magical enough as it is, without the necessity for a creator. That's my view. Even knowing exactly how it works, will still not yield the why it exists unfortunately. When it comes to that, I go back to my agnostic roots. I don't know why. All I know is it exists, and it's the most amazing, magical thing... just by existing.



Fortunately for myself, I am the type of person to always admit when I'm wrong if proven so. I don't protect my ego by denying proof that goes against my beliefs, I protect my ego by only stating something as a fact if I'm near 100% certain it is.

I am always willing to learn, but I take nothing on faith.

I can absolutely agree with that. The only thing I would say is - the point of postulating a creative force (and I won't use "creator" in case it has become a tainted word) is not making the universe more magical. For many people, it does not even have to do with any prior religious beliefs whatsoever. It often runs inside the quest for understanding better the universe and proposing theories that will make more sense out of it, and enhance our ability to adapt to our reality and make a better use of what we have and what we know.

I am an agnostic, so far. That means I don't know, so I won't rule out things, unless proved false or harmful to believe. I recently read this, by Jim DeKorne: "The structure of belief is essential, but the content must always be provisional. Think metaphorically, think hypothetically, but never fall into the trap of dogma.". It's the closest thing to a motto I've found this last year.

That said, I liked your personal definition of pantheism

I will simply smile at this post and move on.



Peace

Your peaceful desire to not debate is noted, it's indication appreciated and respected.

Damn me...no I won't let it go.

What do you think made this magical place you are so enamored with? you say because it's magical it doesn't need a creator...then please give me your occams razor's best answer...Cause from my view the simplest answer to explain exactly how this all came to be is a creator...or a creative force...something. Something beyond the material realm had to exist before the material realm came to be. I'm using occams' razor.Creators begat creations. Show many any thing from the material world that doesn't follow that fundamental truth..anything.

You say no need for magic, and I say it is all FUCKING magic. Every single last aspect of all of it is magic. You can't make it. I can't make it. I know of one that can make, and no on else know's of anyone else that can make it. yet it's here. Show me anything that more resembles magic than you. Or me. Or anything you can observe.


You materialists are so freaking limited in you view of what's possible it's honestly just down right painful at times. I say that as a scientist. Someone who has essentially dedicated his life to studying the material world....yet I can see this plainly as day.

Forget God and every stupid ass thing you ever heard about it. Check your ego at the door. You know nothing and shouldn't even pretend to. Humble yourself.

Let's focus on you. What are you? Where did you come from...your parents...sure...now follow that logic to it's ultimate conclusion.

Man the profound obvious is literally smacking you in the face. It's stoking your "I despise creationist" ego.

You would rather buy some theory about a giant bang..and then magically life appears. LOL. Than a theory about a creator that sets the rules and makes it go bang? Whatever. Where is your occams razor for the question of what made it go bang? Everythign in this universe was created by something. All of it. I don't care if you don't like it. You were created. Your mom was created. Every atom in your body came into existance from something. CREATION IS THE ONLY REALITY that you actually know of. Prove otherwise.

What are you? Why do you do anything you do. What was that thought you just had. Why do you disagree with me? Why do you agree with me? What is the foundation behind any thought you have...Seriously? Do you know anythign about the thoughts, views, or emotions you have? Hava you actually ever had a unique individual thought that was your and yours alone?

You claim materialism, but can't explain yourself...dont' bother I know you can't. I can't either.

Flat out. The universe is not a random chance. Life didn't arise from a null set. From nothing comes nothing. Simple as that. There wasn't just a void of nothing before the bang...and then blam...atoms, electrons, quarks, and all the rest of mass just came to be?

Fuck no.

That is God. People can be offended by the word God and that's just fine with me cause it's their mental baggage to deal with. God made this ...all of it. I have no idea how or why, or really even exactly what God is, but I'm past some self inflated scientific ego pretending that I can wrap my mind around why I'm here and some how write it off as being a creation without a creator. LOL...Seriuosly lol. All you aspects of creation wandering around out their denying that you were created! LOL

What do I have? I have this. I have an ego humble enough to realize that my awareness came from something. No scientific theory as of yet has demonstrated the rise of consciousness and free will from in animate matter. Nothing AI even remotely approaches human intelligence nor do I see it ever actually happening. You know what though. If and when when create AI...it will have been created. Just as you were. the only difference is you will be it's God.

Thus for the time being. Occams razor demands that the simplest view is a creator or a creative force. POINT TO ANY THING THAT WASN'T CREATED? You materialist are the ones that are reaching for anything at all to make it so that no God was involved.

I'm have thought about this and debated deleting this post. I am choosing to post it regardless of the fact that I doubt seriously anyone will even take the time to ponder deeply even a single thing I outlined. Your minds are made up just as mine is...and in fact this was my only point to Citta a few posts ago.....I really wasn't going to jump back into this senseless fray.

Ok really am done with it.



Peace.

I am sorry, joedirt, but you are telling "materialists" to be humble, that they don't know anything. Yet, you are the one saying you know that there is something outside the boundaries of the material world!

As for the idea that "something beyond the material realm had to exist before the material realm came to be"... It is unfounded:

If you take Time out of the equation, then there is no logic in searching for a cause, reason, or creator (cause/consequence being an atribute of Time). Since Time is a result of the movement of matter/energy, then there is no presence of Time outside of the material reality.

I am not saying there can't be a creator (or something outside of the creation). It is still possible, although I doubt it... but saying there HAS to be something "beyound" our Universe is ridiculous.

It seems to me that it is exactly what is magical about our present experience: that it is (probably) a processus of self-creation! You don't have to look for God in an external world. It is here, everywhere, unfolding itself.

In all honesty, I don't believe in the duality of spirit and matter. You can debate wich one is real, or predominant (spirit or matter)....but in the end I think you are talking of the same substance with different languages.

This is nonsense and a form of generic ad hominem fallacy. You should know better than to start arguing like this, it's lousy debate. It is a perverse, corrosive and commonly touted criticism used by religious people, mystics, new agers and other spiritual people. It really just reflects a number of diverse errors in thinking and reason. Ad hominems also tends to run into debates when a debater has run out of good and spesific arguments. As Christopher Hitchens once said "… I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem."... I am tempted to agree.

Being open-minded doesn't mean considering all and every possibility as equally viable, joedirt. This is not only impractical, but many claims, such as the one you present in your post, are completely unsupported by the evidence while others are just straight out ridiculous. To accept claims uncritically, in the absence of supporting evidence, has nothing to do with being open-minded. Accepting claims purely on the basis of belief and wishful thinking is to be credulous, however.

The implicit theme running through this line of fallacious reasoning of yours, is that it generates a kind of false argument in that just because materialists, skeptics and scientists do not endorse and embrace certain claims or ideas about our universe, they must be close-minded. But there is nothing close-minded about openly and objectively considering an idea or claim and then rejecting it or say it's unlikely to be true. Materialists, skeptics and many scientists have done nothing wrong, but have backed an idea with the highest quality evidence, supporting the most reasoned and the most likely account based on this evidence.

If the argument or claim being made by you could be shown to be correct, then an open-minded person will modify their views accordingly – indeed science would demand this in the face of good and consistent evidence. If the argument is found wanting in a number of fundamental aspects on the other hand, such as yours and Hyperspace Fool do, it will be soundly rejected and with good reasons. Clearly, by making an explicit commitment to all knowledge being provisional (as opposed to unquestionable) the way science and open-mindedness actually do, this is the most open-minded stance any knowledge system can take.

Let's examine some of your claims about that the universe must have been created. Your creator hypothesis would reasonably predict that the universe, at the time of creation, should have possessed some degree of order - the design that was inserted by the Grand Designer. In short, our best cosmological understanding of our universe shows that our universe began with no structure or organization at all, designed or otherwise. It was a state of complete chaos. We are then forced to conclude that the complex order we can see today could not have arisen as a result of any initial design built into the fabric of our cosmos at the so-called creation, but through some of the things I have already mentioned in my discussion with Hyperspace Fool.

Another common argument often used, and that it seems that you use, is this (formed as a syllogism in Islamic theology):

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Here you, and many others, insert God as the cause. First objection of course is who or what created God? Second objection is that this kalâm argument as it is called, has been severely challenged by philosophers on logical grounds. I will not address this here, because we're interested in the science (or at least I am). The first premise of this argument is taken to be true without any further justification than that of common, everyday experience - the same kind of experience that told us the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. The fact is that physical events at the atomic scale seem to happen without no cause at all. For example, when an atom in an excited state drops down to a lower energy level, it spontanously emits a photon, and this emission is without evident cause. Similar to this, no cause is evident in the decay of radioactive nuclei. These events, by so appearing, contradicts the first premise of this argument. Even if the kalâm argument were true, why should the cause not be a natural one without the need to be God or something supernatural?

Another shot at the this kalâm argument is that the second premise also need not be true. The claim that the universe began with the big bang has no real basis in current cosmology and physics. The observations supporting the big bang does not rule out the possibility that of a prior universe. Many theoretical models have been published that suggests soundly that our universe came into existence from pre-existing universes. We have no real reason to assume the universe actually began with the big bang. As Stephen Hawking also said "(...) if the universe is really completely self-sustained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place then, for a creator?".

Also worth noting here is that a number of prominent physicists have published, in very reputable scientific journals and peer reviews, a number of other scenarios by which the univers could come into existence "out of nothing" by totally natural causes. None of these things can be "proven" per se, but it serves to illustrate that the argument for the existence of God based on this creation-gap in scientific knowledge fails, because plausible natural mechanisms can be given within the framework of existing knowledge.

The origins and workings of our universe also doesn't require any violation of known physical laws. One might argue where these laws came from, and many state that they must have come from outside this universe. But this is not a demonstrable fact, and there is no reason as to why the laws of physics couldn't have come from within the universe itself.

As to the whole question of why there is something rather than nothing, this is often the last recourse of people believing in God to argue for his/her/thats existence, often when all other arguments have failed. Many conceptual problems arises with this of course; How do we define "nothing"? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? But many, and you yourself, claim that God is the answer. But then why is there God rather than "nothing"? Assuming we can define nothing, why should "nothing" be a more natural state than something? In fact, our best knowledge of the universe can give plausible answers to why something is more natural than nothing. Many simple particle systems are unstable, that is, they have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontanous phase-transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since we can expect nothing to be as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo spontanous phase-transitions to something more complicated, like for instance a universe of matter. The transition from nothing to something is a natural one, and as Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has but it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable".

Anyway, this post is long enough.

Stay Well.

This makes me think, I don't know how to put it, but I like it.