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: 1948

Comment by Unseen on September 3, 2012 at 3:45pm

@Anna

"I did, the background radiation, I even gave you a link to learn more." I knew that's what you were gonna say! :)
So this is what I think. I think that just because there is radiation does not mean that there was a big bang.

Of course, you can explain anything with God. If there is radiation, God must have put it there, right?

Comment by Anna Silva on September 3, 2012 at 5:15pm

@ Archaeopteryx-
"I gave you some, then without researching the matter further, you simply tell us your thoughts. We provide evidence, while you only provide thoughts."
You gave me one example of philosophical evidence. And I gave you my reason why I think it is hogwash. and then you gave me a whole lot of links.
Honestly, I only asked for your evidence so that I could make my point. Do you disagree with my "thoughts?" why?

Comment by Anna Silva on September 3, 2012 at 5:16pm

@ Unseen-
"Of course, you can explain anything with God. If there is radiation, God must have put it there, right?" You got me! I do believe God put the radiation there. Guess my gig is up.

Comment by Anna Silva on September 3, 2012 at 5:34pm

@ Archaeopteryx-


You- "It is worth pointing out that time is an aspect of the universe — without the universe, there is no time. Thus, it is possible to say that the universe has existed at every point in time and that at no point in time has there been no universe. That is just about as close to “eternal” as we’re going to get. Because time is an aspect of the universe, it‘s hard to see how it can be said to have a “beginning” in the way the word is normally used. The concept of a “beginning” normally assumes a “time before” at which the object did not exist — but there was no “time before” the universe. Without a time before, the notion of "cause" no longer applies.



Me- If the universe were eternal then we would have never gotten to this point, unless of course there is someone/something outside of time. Being outside of time, that someone/something would not be required to have a beginning (cause). This s/s would be just as you described, not existing (eternal).

 

You- Current theory proclaims that all time and space was enclosed within the infinitesimal singularity that became the Big Bang - if so, where did the singularity reside? It must have been outside of our space/time which, according to your reasoning, would make our universe eternal, not unlike your S/S. if all time and space were enclosed within the “universal” singularity, where, exactly, did the singularity exist? It couldn't have existed within OUR space/time, as it included our space/time within it.

Me- It would actually be my S/S ... the something part anyway. Another question: "How did it get to our space/time?”

Me- a god outside of time would not be under the law of time. Since we are inside time, we are limited to the laws of time. However, an omnipresent god by definition is outside of the limitations of time (or outside of time). Therefore this god would be at every point in time as well as present outside of time, able to do things within the confines of time or not 



You- How can you listen to what you just said, and not see it for the nonsense it is?

 

My logic piggybacks off of yours. You said it first… 

Comment by Sagacious Hawk on September 3, 2012 at 7:01pm

I think I'm finally going to jump in on this.

Anna, you'll have to excuse some of our jaded cynicism as to your motivations for this post. Many of us have had poor experiences with theists asking questions then not really wanting to know the answers, but to simply give their opinion. You have seemed to be genuinely interested in what people have to say, and have indicated that you are a searcher for truth and "Truth." I am willing to trust that you are here to hear us out, and I applaud your desire to seek information outside of your common group. Not enough people seem to do that, and it reinforces their own world views. I was a few years ago in a similar place as you, having considerable questions and interested to know the answers. The reasons I went questioning were because, as a devout Catholic, I had doubts I was trying to alleviate. I kept an open mind and was willing to accept fact as fact. I started looking into neuroscience, astrophysics, history, anthropology, and genetics. The more I learned about these subjects, the more I understood the natural world. The greater my understanding became; the less I saw that God was present and active in the world. The supernatural made less and less sense in a natural existence. Eventually, I became a deist until I found myself willing to accept the truth. There is no supernatural watchmaker looking out for me. The reason I'm telling you this is as both a warning and a promise. If you do continue to search for truth as to the reasons for why we are here and who we are and came to be, you will not see the hand of God sheltering and guiding humanity to its present form, but you will see chance and chaos in the haphazard development of all things natural.

If you want to understand an atheist viewpoint, I'd like to point out that our views are generally formed on facts. Atheists as a whole only agree on one thing for sure, that current concepts of a deity or deities are likely to be false. We don't all agree on why that is, but the outcome is never the less the same. The only other thing that I have found that seems to connect the rest of us as atheists is that we take the world on fact. For the most, we are skeptical of anything that doesn't have evidence to support it. The only belief that we could be said to have (and that's still not all of us) is that we should live by facts. So, if you have come looking for opinions and beliefs, words that your posts have used quite often, on the origin of the natural world... then you are in the wrong place. What we can provide you and what we expect you to accept are facts.

We know that the Big Bang did in fact happen. It all started with Edwin Hubble, as Arch pointed out, who noticed that galaxies were moving out from a central point. (Side note: before Hubble's observations, we didn't know that there were other galaxies). He deduced this by determining the speed and direction from which they were moving relative to us. Imagine holding a balloon against a wall and inflating it. Where the balloon touches the wall is us in the Milky Way and there are several on the wall of the balloon. When the balloon inflates, the one's near to us don't move quickly in relation to us, but those that are on the opposite side of the balloon move away very quickly. In this way he could determine that as a whole, galaxies were moving outward from a central location.

Then there is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) energy that is filling the universe. It helps first to understand that matter as we know it with its bonds between nuclei being created by a shred electron did not exist in the early universe. All was first energy. Then with expansion came cooling and the formation of basic particles like quarks. After a time, anti-matter loses to matter and then the quantum particles begin to form into protons, neutrons, and electrons, but the universe is still way too hot for them to create molecules so they are floating around as a super-hot hydrogen plasma. This plasma was the source of the radiation that we can observe today. The only way this radiation could exist is if it was expanding with the universe since its near conception. There is no other explanation for it. No other idea meshes with known quantum theory, our natural laws, and observable fact other than the Big Bang theory. Due to the nature of the universe at the time, we currently have no means of peering back before the CMBR to determine exactly how the universe began. All we can tell is that is did. The most prominent idea is that of the multiverse as Unseen as already commented, but there are many thoughts on what the nature of the multiverse might be. Will we ever know if there are other universes out there in much the same way that there are other galaxies out there? Maybe. Some people are already trying to find out right now (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19373118). It may be that we will never be able to determine if we are part of a multiverse.

So to answer your question, we aren't entirely certain how the universe as we know it came to be, but we do know, given what we can determine about the nature of our universe and what we have observed within it, that the only conclusion that can be reached is that approximately 13.75 billion years ago the Big Bang is the event that produced our observable universe. How it came to be is still a work in progress, but there is some promise in some of the theories with mathematic equations to back them up much in the same way that Einstein's theories were little more than advanced math before observable data could prove him right. Regardless of what the cause was, there is nothing to say that a supernatural source is needed nor is there evidence that a supernatural source is the answer. Considering that the universe is natural and holds to natural laws, there is likely a completely natural explanation for how it occurred; the tricky part is finding evidence for it.

Comment by Unseen on September 3, 2012 at 7:13pm

@Zia

Muslims believe in the same God as the Christians and the Jews.

That would only be true if God is real And how Muslims, Christians, and Jews describe the character of that God differs so widely, not just between religions but even within the religions, that I can't except that they're all the same. Just a bunch of different Gods having some scriptures in common.

Comment by Unseen on September 3, 2012 at 7:16pm

@Sagacious Hawk

You're forgetting that God can be a deceiver. You see, he can plant evidence contrary to the biblical account in order to tempt us to fall by the wayside and start believing facts instead of dogma. He planted the fossil evidence of dinosaurs in order to trick us into believing falsely that the world is million upon millions of years old, and not just a few thousand.

Comment by Doc Feral on September 3, 2012 at 7:23pm

Unseen...

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

Comment by matt.clerke on September 3, 2012 at 7:35pm

Rob, I think you will find Satan is actually the good guy in the biblical stories... Satan means "the opposer", and his other name, "Lucifer", means bringer of light. On the other hand, I believe Yahweh is synonymous with narcissist, but I might be wrong about that...

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

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

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service