Can the Universe create itself?

According to the Bible in Hebrews 11:3 (NIV)

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command,
so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

The phrase "what is seen was not made out of what was visible" means
that the visible universe cannnot create itself and the ONE (GOD) who
created it is not visible. The universe cannot account for itself.

Thanks!

I wholeheartedly agree with my friend and colleague easterangel.

Some interesting reading on the subject of the universe's beginnings
may be found here:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

First-cause has been a question that has filled the time of
religionists, philosophers and cosmologists alike.  Now that it is
objectively apparent that the universe as we know it began in the "Big
Bang," a term which is misleading but useful, the question of what
happened before the Big Bang is relevant.

'Inflation theory' seems the probable answer.  Please notice I use the
term "theory" in the scientific sense as is an explanation or model
based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one
that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to
explain and predict natural phenomena.  I do not use the word 'theory'
as is used by some to mean unproven or untestable conjecture.

But as has been shown, (Borde and Vilenkin 1994) the inflationary
state preceding the Big Bang must have had a beginning also.  So the
real question is how to make something out of nothing;  meaning we
really need to ask is whether there is anything in the laws of physics
that would prevent the Universe from creating itself.

Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general
relativity allows for closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing
backwards in time through the original inflationary state we
eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause. A
"steady-state" eternally inflating universe is quite possible after
all, with no beginning as well as no end.

Such a Universe can be classically stable and self-consistent, giving
a natural explanation of the arrow of time. For example: an
inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns
out to be itself.  Interestingly, the laws of physics allow the
Universe to be its own mother.

The most reasonable answer to the question of what happened before the
Big Bang is "what happened before inflation" and that appears to be
eternal inflation, which implies that in most of the meta-universe,
exponentially far beyond our horizon, inflation never stopped.  There
was no creation, only an eternal Universe with no beginning, self
creating and unending.

Cheers
digs

1. The observable evidence is that that which we like to point at and
call the universe exists and at least was once super tiny.  But the
physicist say they can't (using Aristotles empiricism - evidence based
knowledge) know earlier than 10^-35 seconds etc.  But you already know
this.
2.  The question is not of the nature of how the universe could create
itself, which is a bit more complicated, though most with a kindy
education could follow it after a bit of coaching (but I haven't
published this yet, so I'll stay silent on the matter for the
present).
3.  But to the answer to your question - and as much as you won't like
the answer much because it chops God bad - but the answer is simple -
yes it can create itself.  Your question in full is better stated 'Can
the universe create itself from nothing (and nothing else).  This
would need a big discussion about what is meant by nothing and a
thousand semantic issues that are just so ho hum, to be left for those
who want to talk about the problem, not the answer.  In effect the
centre of the question is 'Can nothing and only nothing exist, and is
it stable.'  No, it is not stable.  If there is a 'nothing (and
nothing else)' which is implied by your question, then it would have
to be infinite.  But an infinity of nothing is everywhere the same
(isotropic in a mathematical sense)so everywhere has the same identity
- you could not locate your imagined self in this structure, for there
is no dimensions in 'nothing (and nothing else)' by definition.  In
fact to talk about an infinity of nothing (and nothing else) is
non-sensical - there is no infinity of anything for it to exist in. 
It follows without redemption that nothing cannot be infinite. 
Therefore it is finite.  If it is finite, it has a boundary (it matter
little what the nature of the boundary is, for that is outside the
scope of the question).  But if it is bounded, then there is at least
nothing and the boundary (meaning nothing and something other than
nothing).  And that is at least the beginning of a universe.  Too
easy.  So yes, some structure is unavoidable and a universe can only
create itself, it can't not.
Spooky huh, but too bad for God.

We are. Therefore, it did. 

-K~

Perhaps I've misunderstood the meaning of the word "evolutionary" in
the title. But in case I haven't:

This question has nothing to do with "evolution", at least not in the
common scientific sense of Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution
does not address the question of the existence of the Universe. It is
not even a theory of the origin of life. Darwinian evolution proposes
a theory and supporting evidence for a mechanism of the origin of
species--that new species of living organisms evolve from previous
forms by physical processes of natural selection.

Back to the question at hand:
The asker's user id is "aquinas", and indeed Thomas Aquinas proposed
the argument of "first cause" as one argument for the existence of
God. Aquinas said that everything in the Universe is contingent--the
existence of everything in the Universe depends on the existence of
some prior thing or things. Aquinas claimed, though, that this
contingency cannot go infinitely back in time. There must be some
"prime mover", who Aquinas says is (no big surprise) God.

I've never understood why people consider this argument convincing.
First, there's no evidence that this prime mover (or primal cause) is
necessary. Gautama Buddha said (essentially) that "regression of
cause" in the Universe is infinite. So, there you have it. Two
philosophers disagreeing.

Even if there must be a prime mover, who says that prime mover must be
God? (Unless your definition of God is "the prime mover", but that
argument doesn't connect with any of the other supposed attributes of
God.)

Finally, why is it that a Universe can't create itself, but a God can?
If your definition of God is that-which-can-create-itself, then why
not just call the Universe "God" and have done with it? The Universe
may have been created by God, or by itself, or some other way. But
putting in something called "God" doesn't solve the problem, because
that's just replacing one self-creating thing (the Universe) with
another (God). It's a word game.

Can the Universe create itself? Maybe so, maybe not. But injecting God
into the equation simply doesn't answer the question, proof texts or
otherwise.

--Mark Johnson

aquinas...

You might enjoy reading:

'Creating Cosmos'
Author:Barbara Dewey
Paperback
Publisher: Bartholomew Books; Revised edition (May 1994)
ISBN: 0933123000


'The Theory of Laminated SpaceTime'
Author:Barbara Dewey
Manufacturer: Bartholomew Books
Release Date: July, 1993
Media: Hardcover
ISBN: 0933123027

'Consciousness and Quantum Behavior: The Theory of Laminated
 Spacetime Re-Examined'
Author:Barbara Dewey
Paperback: 130 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.50 x 8.50 x 5.75
Publisher: Bartholomew Books; (July 1993)
ISBN: 0933123043

sublime1-ga

Read the book Two big bangs created the Universe (Formed in Eternal
Space), this book tries to answer your question.

Thanks!