I think matter has always existed and will always continue to exist.  But even if it hadn't, that doesn't then give us a reason to believe that some being created matter. Who created the being?  What if that supposed "being" is actually random luck over quite literally an unfathomable number of years? 


I tend to believe the Big Bang Theory i.e. all matter was previously compressed into a singularity, which then exploded.  But I also believe that before our Big Bang, there was probably another universe which both expanded and then shrank to a singularity, caused by the previous universe collapsing on itself.  At the start of that universe, another singularity caused by a gravitational collapse.  You see where I'm going.


I can even accept the possibility of a multiverse, though I consider it unlikely. Just my opinion, though I welcome arguments either way.


Why do some people assume there must have been a creation?  Why is it hard to believe that everything that is, has always been?  I find it more illogical to assume that something can be created out of nothing.


In my opinion, there have probably been more universes than we can imagine, more earths than we can conceive.  There are already, in the universe we exist in, a quantity of stars and planets that we are not capable of comprehending. I am not talking about a matter of 14 billion years, but a practically infinite number of years when you consider the previous universes that I believe may have collapsed and re-expanded.  For me there is no reason to believe that matter need have been created - it has just always been.


What say you?


I'm wondering: where do others stand on this idea?

Views: 560

Comment by Dylan Sloboda on September 27, 2011 at 6:26pm


Actually, proton decay has been observed by researchers in a mine in Japan. They used a mine to prevent background radiation from causing false positives. They took a large tank of water and surrounded it with detectors. I seem to recall they observed that the decay rate is way higher than theoretical projections.

Comment by Ron V on September 27, 2011 at 9:27pm

You might enjoy Barrow's book- The Origin of the Universe-

“But there are at least four quite different possibilities, all of which are consistent with everything we know about the universe.

1)         Instead of beginning as a state of infinite density, the universe of space, time, and matter comes into being with a finite density and continues in a state of expansion.

2)         The universe “bounces” into a state of expansion from a previous state of maximum but finite contraction.

3)         The universe suddenly begins its expansion from a static state, in which it resided for a past eternity.

4)         The universe gets ever smaller in the past without reaching a state of zero size.  It has no beginning.”

p 87-88

This book was written in 1994 and I haven't really kept up with Modern Physics since then, but it a decent review of the above ideas.


Comment by andrew j van der veen on September 27, 2011 at 10:39pm

Let cold hard facts point us in the right direction .Theism is an obsolete dinosaur of an idea.

Give me science any day instead :)

Comment by Tex in the City on September 27, 2011 at 11:13pm

Good points all, guess I'll have to keep reading...

Comment by Joseph on September 28, 2011 at 12:10am

I think 70% dark energy and 24% dark matter makes the universe a double espresso.

Comment by Jerry on September 28, 2011 at 12:56am


If William Lane Craig was correct about his statements in his little series on the Kalam Argument (horrible source, I know, but he wants to make his god the only source of reality, so it might be correct), then the reason is that the entropy builds up each time it goes through the reset phase (realistically speaking). SO eventually you get to the point where the available free energy is so low you cannot generate a new universe. He then make the jump that you need a creator force. And through faulty logic, a personal one at that.


I don't really know where he got this from, and don't know why this would be the case... but it make give you something to go on for future investigations.

Comment by Jerry on September 28, 2011 at 1:00am

I completely forgot about elemental and smaller forms of decay... That may be waht he was talking about.


That could be were he got it from, and was referencing a physicist's calculations.

Comment by Dylan Sloboda on September 28, 2011 at 1:48am

You should check out my recent cosmological blog.


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

Join Think Atheist

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service