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: 1897

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

Comment by Sagacious Hawk on September 3, 2012 at 7:43pm

"If we take these effects we see and say that it is proof of something specific, that's philosophy. all of these things can be explained by lots of theories. You can plug it in however you like. Studying effects is great, but you gotta be careful to say that it is proving something."

Anna, extrapolating answers from observed effects isn't philosophy, it's science! What happens is that when we have enough observed phenomenon we can determine that there is only one explanation. Plate tectonics, germ theory, quantum theory... all these things were derived by observing our natural world and what happens within it. You can't just simply plug in a theory and say that it works. If it doesn't fit the evidence, then it can't be true! That's how we know thing we can't see for ourselves like the defining lines of tectonic plates or dark matter actually exist. We can detect the movements of the earth to see where the plates are rubbing against each other. We can detect the gravitational effect of dark matter in the universe. We can't see these things for ourselves, but by studying their interactions with other matter or forces, we can verify that our theories are correct. And yes, we do have to be careful with saying that something is definitive. That's why CERN has taken so long to say whether or not their experiments to detect the Higgs Boson has proven that the sub-atomic particle does in fact exist. Science relies on absolute verification to an order beyond chance and reproducibility to gain the same results to proven that what is fact is fact.

When you say, "So this is what I think. I think that just because there is radiation does not mean that there was a big bang," that's an opinion. It's an idea, but since it is about facts and observable phenomena, then your opinion is open to being right or wrong. On the upside, you're skeptical. I can appreciate that. On the downside, you're being skeptical about the wrong thing in this instance. It's not the same as saying, "blue is a better color than green." It's like saying, "I think bats are birds because they have wings." That onion is wrong. Bats are mammals. They don't have feathers, don't lay eggs, and nurse their young. There are verifiable facts that prove that sentence is wrong. Likewise your opinion is also wrong. The only explanation for what is observed in the CMBR is that the Big Bang caused it. Secondly, if you are going to make your hypothesis that the radiation isn't explained by CMBR, then you need to be able to explain it somehow. It obviously came from somewhere. If there was a local source for it, there would be distinct and incredible variations in the radiation so much so that we would have another scientific postulation on the origin of the radiation.

As a last note, we've known about and have been studying CMBR since the 1960s. for almost half a century, astrophysicists who have made it their lives work to understand what this radiation is and where it came from have all concluded that it originates from the Big Bang. Are you really going to say that after reviewing some of the information regarding it for what an hour? two? that those incredibly knowledgeable people who have devoted years of study to this phenomenon are completely wrong in the conclusions that they have come to? Do you know how arrogant that sounds? "After reviewing this information for the last two hours, I have determined that all these men and women with PhD's in astrophysics studying this particular issue for the last 50 years never came to the right answers." Really, are you going to say that? Because that doesn't sound like someone searching for truth. It sounds like someone who either doesn't understand science and scientific discovery or someone who doesn't want to hear the truth and accept fact. Hopefully, it's the first and not the second, because at least, the first can be corrected. Like Arch said, there's a world of information out there if you are willing to learn it. Fuck, there's a whole universe worth of knowledge out there; I encourage you to learn everything you can about it.

Comment by Sagacious Hawk on September 3, 2012 at 8:15pm

@ Arch

I had not seen that. That's an interesting find; I'll have to bookmark it for later.


As a child, I had a great love of dinosaurs. At about the age of 5, I had already chosen what paleontologists said about the world over christian myth, but that had more to do with the fact that monstrous dinosaurs larger than my house and giant meteors crashing into the planet was a far cooler origin story than a garden with magic trees, a bunch of animals, and two naked people who get kicked out for eating an apple.

Comment by Gina Rodriguez on September 3, 2012 at 8:54pm

Why do we presume that there was ever nothing?  Nothing implies the absence of everything--from the miniscule molecule to the vacuum that it should be left with.  It is just as improbable and inconceivable that there was ever nothing as the notion that there has always been something.  The more important question is what we are doing with the time we have now, right??? :)

Comment by Gina Rodriguez on September 3, 2012 at 9:02pm

Ah!  Sorry.  I overlooked that you mentioned thus at the end of your post.

Comment by Unseen on September 3, 2012 at 9:19pm

@Rob Klaers


I thought it was Satan who was the deceiver and he planted the fossils. At least that's what I was told growing up.

That sounds like one of the many things Christians think up to make The Bible match up with the scientific facts.

Comment by Unseen on September 3, 2012 at 9:42pm

Gina, I don't think there EVER was nothing. Even nothing needs space for its nothingness to occupy. Prior to the birth of the cosmos, it's not there was an empty space waiting for something to happen. When the initial singularity exploded, it created space and time along with its expansion. Before the Big Bang there was actually less than nothingness, for our universe wasn't a space awaiting a Big Bang. Our universe simply didn't exist at all.

Comment by Michael on September 3, 2012 at 9:54pm


"Michael, anything that acts in the everyday universe of our lives is subject to its laws."

I have seen footage of UFO's doing sky manuevers as if completely independentof the Higgs field and as such exhibiting no inertia.

Open discussion: Scheduled for September 22, the one night event has a tease of speakers with credible insight into the mysteries surrounding the sky

Open discussion: Scheduled for September 22, the one night event has a tease of speakers with credible insight into the mysteries surrounding the sky

Col. John Alexander
Col. Bill Coleman

Speakers: Col. John Alexander, left,  is a UFO author and investigator while Col. Bill Coleman, right, served as the FBI's Project Blue Book chief spokesperson while serving in the U.S. Air Force

Also scheduled to join the discussion is Col Robert Friend who served as director of Project Blue Book that all together reported 701 unidentified sightings out of 12,618 throughout the years of 1947-1969, according to the now publically archived records.

Connecting the phenomenon internationally are scheduled guest speakers Nick Pope, who served as a UFO investigator with the U.K.'s Ministry of Defence, and Col. Charles Halt who was Deputy Base Commander at Bentwaters, the U.K.'s former Royal Air Force station.

Mr Pope is expected to share how both governments of the U.S. and U.K. held similar study groups over sightings and why both eventually closed their books on the issue.

Col. Charles Halt
Col. Robert Friend

Insight: Col. Charles Halt, left, who served as Deputy Base Commander at Bentwaters Royal Air Force station in the U.K. will speak along with Col. Robert Friend, right, who served as director of the FBI's Project Blue Book

International perspective: Nick Pope, a UFO investigator of U.K.'s Ministry of Defense is also a scheduled speaker on both governments' handling of the reports

International perspective: Nick Pope, a UFO investigator of U.K.'s Ministry of Defense is also a scheduled speaker on both governments' handling of the reports

Read more:


Comment by Unseen on September 3, 2012 at 10:08pm


I haven't even HEARD of anyone as gullible as you. You saw a movie. You obviously think, based on no evidence whatsoever, that what you saw was some sort of aircraft of spacecraft, whereas there are probably many other more likely explanations.

The line between having an open mind and a hole in the head is usually wide. But not in every case, it seems.

Comment by Unseen on September 3, 2012 at 10:10pm


You DO know what the "U" in "UFO" stands for don't you?

Comment by Yahweh on September 4, 2012 at 12:41am

Why I made it of course...
Jokes aside, you can't say for certain because it all is speculation.

then again a being snapping his fingers to form objects is really childish to believe in.


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

Join Think Atheist


Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service