Was the universe created? (not an evolution discussion)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether the universe was created, particularly in the context of differing definitions of "God" and the implications of such definitions on the understanding of the universe's existence. Participants explore philosophical, scientific, and theological perspectives, questioning the nature of existence and creation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Philosophical exploration
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the assertion that "God created the Universe," arguing it is not a fact and may be an act of faith.
  • One participant suggests that the concept of time complicates discussions of existence before the universe, stating that time was created with the universe.
  • Several participants question the need for a creator, suggesting that the universe's origins may not require intentionality or a deity, and that accepting uncertainty is valid.
  • There are discussions about alternative explanations for the universe's existence, such as theories involving branes or black holes, which challenge traditional notions of creation.
  • Some participants highlight the complexity of attributing the universe's creation to a deity, questioning where such a creator would originate from.
  • One participant argues that defining "God" strictly as the creator limits the understanding of what could be considered divine, suggesting that various interpretations exist.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the existence of a creator and the nature of the universe's origins. Some agree on the complexity of the topic, while others challenge each other's interpretations and definitions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express differing interpretations of the original statement about God and creation, leading to confusion and debate about the definitions and implications of such terms. The discussion reflects a range of philosophical and scientific viewpoints without resolving the underlying questions.

KingNothing
Messages
880
Reaction score
4
Hi. I have a problem with a statement that was in the first chapter of my "World Religions" book for school. It first explains that the word "God" can have many different meanings. It then concludes the chapter with "It is a fact, not a mystery, that God, whatever or whoever God might be, created the Universe".

I think what it is saying is that everyone defines 'god' differently, but it is a fact that the universe went from a state of 'non-existence' to 'existence'. Would you agree?

Trouble is, why? Is there some proof that it had to have not existed, then at some later time existed? Is there a good scientific reason to not believe that it 'was always there'? (other than simply being hard to imagine)

What is your reaction.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Move to philosophy forum?
 
You seek an answer to a question you don't understand
 
time was created when the universe was created so there is really no such thing as before the universe was created. you can't say there was nothing, then there was something because there was no such thing as then, then.
 
cronxeh said:
You seek an answer to a question you don't understand
you were supposed to say 'grasshopper'
 
KingNothing said:
"It is a fact, not a mystery, that God, whatever or whoever God might be, created the Universe".
That's about as wrong as a statement can get. It is not a fact.
 
great reply evo! more chocolates?
 
I remember an article on Slate about a year back explaining how (theoretically) a universe could be created in a lab.
 
Why do people think that someone or something has to intentionally be behind everything that happens? Where everything came from is something we don't understand. I have no problem with that. Why are some people afraid of accepting that we just don't understand? Why do they have to <insert mythical figure here> every time they don't know the answer? Is it because they can't handle not having an answer?
 
  • #10
Evo said:
Why do people think that someone or something has to intentionally be behind everything that happens? Where everything came from is something we don't understand. I have no problem with that. Why are some people afraid of accepting that we just don't understand? Why do they have to <insert mythical figure here> every time they don't know the answer? Is it because they can't handle not having an answer?
I think it is because we're very comfortable with the notion of cause and effect in our everyday experiences.
 
  • #11
that's true I do all sorts of stupid stuff without knowing what I'm doing.

edit: damn MIH got in my way again
 
  • #12
Great replies Evo, something we see eye to eye on.
 
  • #13
to bad you are blind, grasshopper

you can't say something, have someone disagree with you, then say you see eye to eye with them. that is, I believe, the exact definition of "you can't do that" look it up
 
Last edited:
  • #14
tribdog said:
to bad you are blind, grasshopper

you can't say something, have someone disagree with you, then say you see eye to eye with them. that is, I believe, the exact definition of "you can't do that" look it up
He said he had a problem with the statement and I was agreeing with him.
 
  • #15
Evo said:
Why do people think that someone or something has to intentionally be behind everything that happens? Where everything came from is something we don't understand. I have no problem with that. Why are some people afraid of accepting that we just don't understand?
Because one of the beauties of life is that we can understand what seems incomprehensible, and the curious mind strives to.
 
  • #16
Knavish said:
Because one of the beauties of life is that we can understand what seems incomprehensible, and the curious mind strives to.
But by answering every question with <insert mythical being here>, there is no striving to understand anything.
 
  • #17
Evo said:
But by answering every question with <insert mythical being here>, there is no striving to understand anything.
I think you're just bias against religion.:biggrin:
 
  • #18
Evo said:
He said he had a problem with the statement and I was agreeing with him.
Shhh - don't scare it away! It almost wandered into the trib-trap!
 
  • #19
Evo said:
He said he had a problem with the statement and I was agreeing with him.
I was wondering what he said, but I wasn't going to go to the trouble of reading it. I don't know him and it was like 15 lines long.
 
  • #20
KingNothing said:
It then concludes the chapter with "It is a fact, not a mystery, that God, whatever or whoever God might be, created the Universe".

I think what it is saying is that everyone defines 'god' differently, but it is a fact that the universe went from a state of 'non-existence' to 'existence'. Would you agree?
Your paraphrase doesn't capture the meaning of the original. The statement specifically cites "God" as the creator. This means a being with the ability to have intentionally designed and created the universe. Your paraphrase lacks the all important attribution of it all to that being, which is the main point of the book's statement. Stating the universe once did not exist, but now it does, doesn't exclude a non-theological cause for this the way the book's bald assertion does.
 
  • #21
Evo said:
That's about as wrong as a statement can get. It is not a fact.

[clears throat, looks down at shoes] well, it could be a fact but to accept it as such is an act of faith.
 
  • #22
Humanity is like a dragonfly heading into the chloroform cloud.
 
  • #23
KingNothing said:
Trouble is, why? Is there some proof that it had to have not existed, then at some later time existed? Is there a good scientific reason to not believe that it 'was always there'? (other than simply being hard to imagine)
What is your reaction.
The answer I've never been able to get out of someone who holds the view that the universe was created by a god (or whatever you want to call it) is where did that god come from? It seems comfortable to them to not believe something as complex as the universe could have formed without a creator, yet somehow something as complex as a creator capable of producing an entire universe could form out of nothing, or have always been there? To me, it's not an explanation, it's passing the buck.
 
  • #24
Well, either I'm insane or everyone else is, because I read the OP differently.

If you define God as the creator of the Universe, and this is your only definition of God, then whatever created the Universe is therefore God. If the Universe was created by two branes colliding then the collision is God. If the Universe was born out of a black hole in another Universe, then the black hole is God (or the mother Universe). If the Universe was created by a big beardy bloke who lives in Heaven and has the unique property of having 5 fingers in The Simpsons, then said cartoon character is God. If the Universe were created by a thought, the thinker is God.

That, I believe, is the idea under question. King Nothing seems to be pointing out that if the Universe cannot be said to have been created, then the statement is wrong. For instance, a steady-state Universe or one in perputual banging and crashing would not have been created. This is not the prevailing theory. There was, we believe, a first moment, and so a creation and so God (as defined above).
 
  • #25
El Hombre Invisible said:
Well, either I'm insane or everyone else is, because I read the OP differently.
If you define God as the creator of the Universe, and this is your only definition of God, then whatever created the Universe is therefore God. If the Universe was created by two branes colliding then the collision is God. If the Universe was born out of a black hole in another Universe, then the black hole is God (or the mother Universe). If the Universe was created by a big beardy bloke who lives in Heaven and has the unique property of having 5 fingers in The Simpsons, then said cartoon character is God. If the Universe were created by a thought, the thinker is God.

I think you've read it quite well - that's exactly what the book is saying. While giving an extremely definition of "God" does open the door for a lot of theories, it still implies that the universe had to exist because of some cause or thinker or something that we don't understand. But there's no reason that it had to exist because of anything at all. Some people believe it was always there.
 
  • #26
El Hombre Invisible said:
Well, either I'm insane or everyone else is, because I read the OP differently.
If you define God as the creator of the Universe, and this is your only definition of God, then whatever created the Universe is therefore God. If the Universe was created by two branes colliding then the collision is God. If the Universe was born out of a black hole in another Universe, then the black hole is God (or the mother Universe). If the Universe was created by a big beardy bloke who lives in Heaven and has the unique property of having 5 fingers in The Simpsons, then said cartoon character is God. If the Universe were created by a thought, the thinker is God.
That, I believe, is the idea under question. King Nothing seems to be pointing out that if the Universe cannot be said to have been created, then the statement is wrong. For instance, a steady-state Universe or one in perputual banging and crashing would not have been created. This is not the prevailing theory. There was, we believe, a first moment, and so a creation and so God (as defined above).

That is what I was thinking too, it is all in the defnition of god.
 
  • #27
Cool. My sanity, it appears, is vouchsafed. I will tell my banana the good news.
 
  • #28
El Hombre Invisible said:
Cool. My sanity, it appears, is vouchsafed. I will tell my banana the good news.
I don't believe that *anything* was responsible for creating the universe. So no god by any name or description. So, their statement is false.
 
  • #29
Evo said:
I don't believe that *anything* was responsible for creating the universe. So no god by any name or description. So, their statement is false.

Agree. Just because ones common sense says something must have made the Universe start spinning, it need not be so...
 
  • #30
Evo said:
I don't believe that *anything* was responsible for creating the universe. So no god by any name or description. So, their statement is false.
OK then in your philosophy the statement is wrong. I think I covered that earlier though (steady state, etc). I'm going with the big bang til someone comes up with something better, so in the context of the above, the BB is God. My point was that this is the most commonly accepted view, not necessarily the correct one.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Binnig's fractal evolution applied to multiple universes?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate On the origin and the evolution of information in the Universe
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Questions: Gott-Li Can a Universe Create Itself?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Questions about the origin and evolution of dark energy.
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Can Energy Naturally Convert to Matter in the Universe?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Undergrad How does the Singularity produce all the diverse matter in the universe?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Is Earth the Center of the Universe?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Undergrad Why is the observed local region of space flat?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Graduate The significance of the existence of the universe
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Where is the center of the universe?
  • · Replies 127 ·
5
Replies
127
Views
26K