So who or what created the universe?

Is there anyone who doesn't ask this question? If not, why not? I'm pretty confident that any thinker has pondered this. Hmmm... why is this such a concern of ours? Why is this question in our mind? Why were we not content with just being? You know, as in the earth was always here.

Well, regardless, we asked.

Science is now telling us that the universe came into existence when a primordial start of elemental condition started to expand. Which still begs the question, "where did that came from?" It's difficult to imagine nothing into something; it just doesn't make sense. We are always going to be asking, "where did that come from?"

Creationist on the other hand have decided a source. Whichever god they choose has just always been there. But just as the previous theory, there isn't quite a satisfaction. You can argue recursive creation for both, but then you are left with option 3: the universe has always been here.

But again, if you say that, why can't you say "God has always been here," or "the elements have always been there." 

So, we are trying to pinpoint this beginning and are using the same arguments on each other as if they are irrelevant to our own theory. 

There must have been something that started it all. Either the elements existed forever or a creator. So now we have to chose which we like better. 

Which do you find more logical: something/someone has always been, or nothing turning into something? 

Views: 1896

Tags: Big, bang, creation, origin, theory, universe

Comment by archaeopteryx on August 30, 2012 at 10:52pm

RE: "a magical sorcerer name Yahweh created it" - actually, according to my research, the ancient Hebrews, i.e., Abe, Ike and Jake, worshiped a god named Amurru, and didn't switch to Yahweh until Moses spent time with the Kennites:

Exodus 4:22 - "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai (Amurru), but by my name, JEHOVAH (Yahweh), was I not known to them."

Comment by JustNorrik on August 30, 2012 at 11:02pm

We know humans created unicorns, fairies, and all kinds of other fictitious characters for fiction based literature throughout the ages. Yet we know those beings or entities do not exist outside of literature and with great confidence. If we apply the same rigorous measures on any religious text, we will come to the same conclusion. God does not exist outside of human created writings and stories. This concept of "creation" of the universe comes from this, to inject God in one more place to gain some legitimacy, God is involved in creating the universe as much as Peter Pan was. I can make the exact same claims with Peter Pan as any creationist can with God.   

So in its simplistic form, what is God? Well god like I said is a manifestation or creation by man to try to explain the natural world, and there is no evidence that goes beyond that. To say there is an entity that either goes by that name or falls under that description requires a throughout search of the universe, but even if you found it, it wouldn’t be the God written about in any religious text here on earth. So it’s safe to say the “God” of any religious text doesn’t exist outside of human creation here on earth. The most telling of all these is how every person defines God differently, giving God different likes and dislikes, always human based. Or how God likes different groups of people over other, always defined by people. God is always referred to as “he”, “him” or “his”, always having a masculine or male gender. Not because God is male, because such an entity would be sexless as having a gender would prove to be pointless because according to the Christian religion there is only one God, last time I checked that's asexual. This genderfication of God shows God was created by humans, as who else would give God a gender directed in favor of misogynist men in the beginning of human history. 

Leave the bed time stories to the kids and leave the science to the scientists...  

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 30, 2012 at 11:06pm


My understanding was that the verse you quoted was part of the marrying of the god of Israel to the god of Judea - likely written during the reign of Hezekiah.  I think the Judeans worshipped the half man half cow god El Shadarackattack or sss.  The Judeans, to my understanding, were weird and only worshipped one god, Yahweh.  When they joined houses they merged all the stories - hence all the doublets in the first 5 books.

Anyway, am pulling on 20 year old memories here, so it's all hearsay, or heresy, depending on accuracy.

Comment by Michael on August 30, 2012 at 11:55pm

@Unseen, once again the greatest conundrum is life, not existence. If life can not be created and is only passed along from one living being to another then life must be eternal. Having no beginning and non end. And by requirement, existing before the creation of this universe. This by definition is God.

Comment by archaeopteryx on August 30, 2012 at 11:58pm

@Heather - Mesopotamia was originally settled by the Sumerians - after 4000 peaceful years, they were overcome by  the Akkadians, who slipped in without green cards and simply stayed until they became sufficiently strong and plentiful to overcome the Summerians. After nearly a thousand years, the Amorites, or Amurrites, followed their example and did exactly the same thing. The Amurrites worshiped one god, Amurru, AKA, "El Shaddai." Although the actual Abraham was fictitious, he was symbolic of the Hebrew people (who where not known by that title at the time) who left Mesopotamia for the Levant during the reign of the Amurrites, having come, according to Genesis, from Haran, on the very border of the original territory of the Amurrites before they began their Mesopotamian conquest - there is no way that their god would not have been Amurru. Later, he identifies himself to Abraham as, "El Shaddai," the very name by which Amurru is known back in Northern Mesopotamia. Later, as I mentioned, in Exodus, he informs Moses that to Abe, Ike and Jake, he was known as "El Shaddai," but that his real name was JEHOVAH (which, as most know, was an early mistranslation of the name, Yahweh).

The doublets are due to the fact that four groups wrote them: the Yahwist (J) Source, writing about 950 BCE; the Eloist (E) Source, writing about 850 BCE and combined with the Yahwist source after 722 BCE; the Priestly (P) Source, writing about 550 BCE; and the Deutronomic (D) Source, writing about 600 BCE - all four were redacted to form the Torah or Pentateuch around 400 BCE.

It's true, regarding the Yawist Source and the Eloist Source, that one was written in Judea and the other in Israel, and later, as mentioned above, combined.

Comment by archaeopteryx on August 31, 2012 at 12:02am

Don't mean to sound like a know it all, but my information is the product of quite recent, extensive  research from very reliable sources. Amazing how quickly Jehovah's Witlesses begin thinking of other things they ought to be doing, once I start my diatribe - good times --

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 31, 2012 at 12:07am

Ok, so I had the joining of the two mythologies right, but missed out on the fact that they started out with the same god before diverging?  You don't come across as a know it all, just providing what you do know, and I appreciate it because I'm too lazy to go look all that stuff up for myself these days.

Comment by Anna Silva on August 31, 2012 at 12:08am

Hey Everyone,

I appreciate your enthusiasm and respect your passion, but i do have a few concerns.
First, i feel as if the conversation is wandering in a direction that it should not. All though I am very tempted to share my thoughts on these topics, debate about the bible, christianity, and God should be addressed in a different post.
Second, the question still is: which do you find more logical; something from nothing, or something from an infinite something. I do enjoy reading your views, but very few people are actually answering the question. A lot of you are simply saying where your view falls on the scale (ex: I believe in Jesus so my answer is something from something infinite) or how you we can't know as humans. I understand that the concepts don't make sense to us, that's why i posed the question. I also, hoped to express how unsatisfied I am with the common arguments used to "disprove" creationism (which does not mean christian... it just means we were created by someone) as well as secular theories. As in "an infinite God is a ridiculous notion" or "having nothing turn into something is a ridiculous notion." Am I the only person who notices that we use the same arguments on each other as if the exact same principles do not apply to our own theory? 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 31, 2012 at 12:15am

Sorry to get off topic, Anna.  If you are limiting it to the two, then you might as well be asking me which shape of fairy wings is the most aerodynamic; pearl blazer or lemon fluffs - because I just don't buy either of your options and you have pretty much stated that you are incapable of fathoming anything else.

Comment by archaeopteryx on August 31, 2012 at 12:18am

@Heather - I've spent a lot of time, up to my elbows in it, so possibly my data is a bit more recent than yours. Then too, once one assumes it's all BS anyway, for most, there's hardly any incentive to dig through it to decide exactly what kind of BS it is.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service