Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Origin of the Universe: Created Universe vs Cyclical Universe

  1. Cyclical Universe: The universe has been here for eternity, big banging and big crunching

    5 vote(s)
  2. Created Universe: A supernatural force like a God or Goddess created the universe

    4 vote(s)
  3. Both theories are valid in different ways

    1 vote(s)
  4. The universe's origin cannot be explained with these theories, there are other better theories

    14 vote(s)
  5. Not Sure

    2 vote(s)
  1. May 23, 2005 #1
    The two biggest causes of the universe cosmologists use is one of two theories. Either the Universe has been here for eternity and has been big banging and big crunching for eternity or some supernatural force (like a God or Goddess) created the universe. Which do you think explains the origin of the universe? Are these two the only way the universe came about, or are there other explanations?

    Vote in the Poll and Discuss.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 23, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The origin of the universe will allways be the best fit to, theoretical and
    observational evidence available at the time of asking the queastion, other
    than that it it is only personal prefference.
  4. May 23, 2005 #3
    There is always going to be controversy over this- between the religious belifs and scientific beliefs. But I put in the first option (even though I'm not completely sure-maybe I should have selected the "not sure" option =P).
  5. May 23, 2005 #4
    I think the universe is cyclical but not just Big Bang'n and Big Crunch'n.
  6. May 23, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The poll makes a false dichotomy between a universe created by "a supernatural force like a God or Goddess created the universe" and "The universe has been here for eternity, big banging and big crunching".
    As most religions believe their God/ess to be eternal, there is no contradiction in both options being true so option 3 is very plausible.

    However there are philosophical problems with the idea of un-testable cosmological postulates, such as that of other universes; any theory that depends on the unobservable is always to be considered provisional.

    Perhaps there are alternatives other than these two. I vote for option 4.

    Last edited: May 23, 2005
  7. May 23, 2005 #6
    Well I don't think it is just about religion. Actually many Deists (like Einstein or founding fathers) believe there is a God that created the universe but there is not necessarily a doctrine to follow. So I guess it goes beyond religion, a creator I guess in this way can be used more as scietific term as well. Of course even if there is a God it does not prove the current doctrines on our planet to follow the God are right and could be made up.
  8. May 23, 2005 #7
    other: multiverse/hierarchy
  9. May 23, 2005 #8
    Explain it more in detail if you can :wink:.
  10. May 24, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Agree. Particularly since the mainstream scientific theory (Big Bang) does not necessarily include a Big Crunch.
  11. May 25, 2005 #10
    if I did- it would necissarily be a lie :wink:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook