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: 1972

Comment by Ron V on August 29, 2012 at 9:48pm

"There must have been something that started it all. Either the elements existed forever or a creator."

No, false dichotomy.

"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 has 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."

The Origin of the Universe, Barrow, p87-88


Why? Because “nothing” is unstable

Comment by Anna Silva on August 29, 2012 at 9:59pm

HIya Kris.
Thanks for posting! :)
One of my biggest passions is finding truth (I do believe in absolute truth, but that is not the discussion here). I particularly enjoy hearing, or in this case reading, other people's opinions on subjects such as origin; I love how it challenges my own philosophies and mind set. So I'm glad to see a swift response.
That being said, I will attempt to answer your questions the best that I can.

The "must" is specific to those who are searching, and my deduction is illustrated pre-"must" :) if you will. Since you are content with you agnosticism, I understand why you protest. I am also interested in hearing other theories I have left out. You are not required to pick your answer, I am simply saying I only see those two options. Of course I did use the big bang theory to encompass other similar theories, so I see how my post may be confusing. But my question is, "something out of nothing, or something always existed." Please share if you know of any other options.

I agree with you that nothing has not been observed. I think that is such an important concept to consider when deciding upon your view of origins of the earth. 

Let me know if you need clarity on my post.

Comment by Anna Silva on August 29, 2012 at 10:13pm

Hi Ron,

Thanks for bringing up those other theories. I did not mean to say that only the Big Bang and Creation theories exist.
The statement I made was meant to be a continuation to the big bang vs. creation concept i was going with, (as in they are both saying the same thing; something existed forever for eternity. Curiously, believers of either theory can not except that reasoning from each other and insist on explanations for infinite existence.) and does not include the nothing into something concept.

I believe all 4 of those theories still are either something always existed, or nothing turned into something.

Which makes me ask, "which makes more sense?"

Comment by Doug Reardon on August 29, 2012 at 10:54pm

the universe has, and always will exist.  It does change, continuously.  Infinite time suggests infinite possibility.  Of course, if the universe ever ceased to exist, it would do so for eternity.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 30, 2012 at 12:21am

I gravitate towards the concept of infinite history of causes but sometimes consider the possibility of cause/effect being decoupled at some point in history/future where time does not intersect the other dimensions.  In the decoupled scenario, the events that caused the big bang may not have yet occurred.  Then I put down my bong and sleep a wonderful sleep.

Comment by James Cox on August 30, 2012 at 12:39am

We could just say we 'don't know', and confine the question to the 'open questions' file for now.

Would we know a good answer when it bits us in the a-ss?

Maybe the answer is 'outside' of our present science?


Comment by kOrsan on August 30, 2012 at 1:15am

The universe was created when god's mom bought her a doll house.

Comment by James Cox on August 30, 2012 at 5:43am

Ever watch politicians? Ever notice the 'I just don't know', come from either side of their mouths? An admission of ignorance or incertainty, I think, indicates weakness to many, humility to some, and honesty to a few. Notice how I even did it? ;p)

While I don't really want to appear an ignorant ass, or open myself up to an appearance of weakness, which seems difficult for males generally, maybe, as a way to recover our commitment to honesty, we and I should stop when we are about to make a statement that implys CERTAINTY!

When we are beginning to cross the gulf between the 'known/suspected', into the 'what-if/what- could-be', maybe we should honor the memory of all the optimistic deluded souls that jumped off water falls, exposed themselves to radiation, poisened themselves with toxic compounds, and proposed ideas that had no chance in hell of being right-in hindsight. Having said this, is anyone willing to play?

I do wish I had something to offer as to the interesting, and important question(s), 'How did the universe begin? Where did the mater come from?' and 'How did the green dragon know when to start?'

Yah, I know, 'What/which green dragon?'

This is what happens when I have musings at 2:40am.   

Comment by Anna Silva on August 30, 2012 at 7:23am

Thanks everyone for your comments :) 
I guess we can add the "we don't exist" theory to the choices, yet then again, where did the question come from if it doesn't exist. Since the thought exists, was it always there or did it come from nothing?
Also, I'm not saying to pick the one that is correct; I'm asking which do you find more rational: nothing into something, or something existed for eternity.
personally, i think they are both difficult to understand. I do think that something existed forever makes more sense though. 

Thanks again for all the comments!

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 30, 2012 at 8:22am

But Anna - why limit yourself to 'something from nothing' and 'something eternal'?


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