How do Marxists/materialists explain the origin of the universe? Can something be created from nothing...

How do Marxists/materialists explain the origin of the universe? Can something be created from nothing? Or do they think it has always existed? Can the universe be infinitely old?

Other urls found in this thread:

the same way scientists do.

We don't know what might have caused (if something indeed caused it) the big bang, however no answer is still better than false answer provided by made up beliefs that people call religion. One day, once our technology progresses enough we might find an answer. Yes, I do not know the answer (at least right now) bot unlike religious people, I am willing to admit it, instead of making up bullshit answers not supported by any evidence and pretending that I know everything.

It falls far outside the purview of marxism. As for materialism it is entirely irrelevant to literally everything. We might as well call the origin of the universe 'God'. It seems pretty likely we can't find out and it is entirely meaningless besides that.
No. But that is not to say that something cannot exist uncaused.

Are you saying all scientists are atheists?

I think it just becomes a philosophical question because you can't prove something supernatural exists with science. How can there be existence without a cause? You can't have infinite regression of causes so you need a first cause, but in our natural world that is impossible. So you there must be something outside our natural world that was the first cause.


Through material? Which would fall under the realm of science. I don't theory think how human's can best interact and organize can lay claim on the big bang; because human's clearly aren't the universe.

I think the empirical way is fine enough. If we figure out the origin of the universe through the scientific method, I'll just stick to it. At the moment, I'm inclined to roll with Hawking's position on it. It seems pretty wild, but it's the best explanation we have so far, and there's no good reason for it to not be true.

This guy knows what's up.

Who cares tbh.

Oparin is GOAT

Now this is the hard hitting shit I've been looking for. Is there a link to his actual arguments? And I'm hoping this isn't the same guy who denied Mendel's genetics

ok Aquinas

Why does the big bang even need a cause. It's a celestial event, you can't break it down that easily.

Here's the read btw

Our perception of existence is most likely incomplete, so we'll probably never know at least in our current state

How could a "celestial event" happen when nothing exists

Because it did. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? As all forms of motion and matter we can confirm are true, came after this event. And your logic is boils down into applying logic to what happened after, to assuming there was even a before.

What if a "before" isn't even necessary

What I seriously don't get is people trying to logically explain the origin of the universe by using logic that's entirely rooted in causation, when this event invented the causation used. There's no reason to believe that the big bang ever needed some fanciful origin story to it.

Most things happen for explainable reasons randomly, because they did. That's just how the universe usually operates.

Well that doesn't follow natural law
How could that be possible under natural law unless something supernatural exists?

Because natural law did not exist prior.

We won't ever know, because everything that happened

For the sake of argument, I'm saying we cannot currently, or even reasonably speculate, on anything that happened before the universe. It would probably involve causation completely alien to us, or at least alien to your argument. All motion, causation, heat, fire, that all came after the big bang. There's no reason to assume it existed before hand.

*because everything that happened prior, doesn't follow what happened after. And everything prior probably doesn't follow natural law as neatly as you want it too.


the universe is the synthesis of a dialectical relationship between kinetic and potential energy, where KE stages a class war against the reigning PE due to its natural desire for proliferation. the result was a stateless mass of both coexisting at equilibrium.

But we can say, which you agree with I believe, that before the "big bang" or whatever the creation of the universe was was "unnatural" or "supernatural" beginning. But I think what you are saying now is who cares because NOW we live in a materialist world. And what came before that doesn't matter?

The supernatural beginning is probably in the realm of physics of a kind, even being unnatural. Probably quantum physics.

Sorry to pee on your parade but no scientist claims that.

the universe never started and will never end

It started as a dense energetic point.

and the earth is flat

My own personal theory for it, though I am probably the dumbest person to ever walk the Earth; is that once the Universe expands to a certain point billions of years from now, it takes much more strain on black holes or, singularities, to function. The bigger the universe, the farther apart all of matter and energy becomes, the "colder" it becomes the more singularities are requires to churn.

At a certain point expansion and contraction of either force of the first singularity to cause this cosmic mess, meets enough resistance by a singularity with enough energetic mass at that point of strain to become a tiny ball not unlike our own first big bang. At that point the energy expands greater than the universe is currently contracting.

But then again I am an idiot.


At least I got something right

Fuck. I meant

*the energy expands greater than the universe at that point is expanding.

Congratulations on finding your own idiotic nature, but as far as I know, you're right.

Probably not, I guess it started at some point, at least in any meaningful way, i.e after the big bang.
There are theories, but otherwise an intelligent person wouldn't be certain. For exampel, you wouldn't believe that an infinite, spooky person made the universe.
Probably not, but maybe so.
Sincerely do not understand the connection.
By the way you and your God (s) are gay.

Does matter bring forth consciousness?

The big bang theory is thoroughly mystical and un-dialectical. It's started out as a rationalization to sneak religion into "science" and has since been parroted by "modern scientists" because we don't actually have a reasonable explanation. Some Marxists suggest that there may be an infinite series of big bangs. But ultimately, we don't know (yet).

Read Engels.

Read Grant and Woods

We got the bigbang from empiricism. The universe is expanding which means it started at some point. I'm talking about the observable universe. It doesn't imply creationism at all.