Was the universe created? (not an evolution discussion)

[KingNothing]

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.

 

[Smurf]

Move to philosophy forum?

 

[cronxeh]

You seek an answer to a question you don't understand

 

[tribdog]

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.

 

[tribdog]

You seek an answer to a question you don't understand

you were supposed to say 'grasshopper'

 

[Evo]

"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.

 

[JamesU]

great reply evo! more chocolates?

 

[loseyourname]

I remember an article on Slate about a year back explaining how (theoretically) a universe could be created in a lab.

 

[Evo]

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?

 

[Math Is Hard]

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.

 

[tribdog]

that's true I do all sorts of stupid stuff without knowing what I'm doing.

edit: damn MIH got in my way again

 

[KingNothing]

Great replies Evo, something we see eye to eye on.

 

[tribdog]

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

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Knavish]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Smurf]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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!

 

[tribdog]

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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[cronxeh]

Humanity is like a dragonfly heading into the chloroform cloud.

 

[Moonbear]

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.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

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).

 

[KingNothing]

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.

 

[mattmns]

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.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Cool. My sanity, it appears, is vouchsafed. I will tell my banana the good news.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[EL]

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...

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

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.

 

[wolram]

The idea that, "nothing", is anything other than a word is crazy, there never was and never will be an absence of everything, if correct then ,"something".
has existed way before the BB, and this some thing must be eternal, this thing
may be energy, now may be energy could be said to be alive in some way, the
fact that every thing we see and are came from energy suggests a design, i am
not very religeous but i think we are are here not by pure chance, perhaps not
spawned from a god but some natural law.

 

[Entropy]

But by answering every question with <insert mythical being here>, there is no striving to understand anything.

We're striving to understand that mythical figure and why he created us. Just because I think God created the universe doesn't mean I'm creating some make-shift answer to try and deter people from studying the moment of creation. It even says in the Bible to study creation (i.e. the univserse) so you can better understand its creator.

 

[tribdog]

The idea that, "nothing", is anything other than a word is crazy, there never was and never will be an absence of everything, if correct then ,"something".
has existed way before the BB, and this some thing must be eternal, this thing
may be energy, now may be energy could be said to be alive in some way, the
fact that every thing we see and are came from energy suggests a design, i am
not very religeous but i think we are are here not by pure chance, perhaps not
spawned from a god but some natural law.

there was no before, before the BB

 

[wolram]

there was no before, before the BB

Then we do not exsist, the above is only meaning less words, the BB origonated
from some thing, if you want to stick to," some thing can come from nothing". so be it it is your fantasy. smile.

 

[tribdog]

Then we do not exsist, the above is only meaning less words, the BB origonated
from some thing, if you want to stick to," some thing can come from nothing". so be it it is your fantasy.

a fantasy shared by most of the educated scientific world. Just because you can't wrap your brain about the idea. Time was created along with the rest of the universe. Things are popping in and out of existence all the time in the vacuum of space and they are created from nothing. Quantum Mechanics allows for it, hell, requires it, it happens.
Saying we don't exist is just pissiness. Nothing I said would make you draw that conclusion and the fact that I said anything at all gives pretty good evidence that we do exist.

 

[Entropy]

Things are popping in and out of existence all the time in the vacuum of space and they are created from nothing.

They are popping out of space, and space is something.

 

[BobG]

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.

Just keeping within the context of what the book is getting at, there are some religions that believe in an eternal universe that had no beginning or end. If it is a fact that the universe went from a state of non-existance, then those religions are automatically wrong and God could be defined as whatever or whoever created the universe - especially if you'd like a definition limited enough in scope to cross many religions. If there's a steady state universe that has always existed, then all religions that talk about the creation of the universe are automatically wrong and you need some other definition for God. Or, if you take into account that before and after has no relevance when time was created along with the universe, then the definition might be appropriate, even for the religions that believe the universe has existed for all of time.

The book is really stepping up to a big challenge if it thinks it can find some politically correct way to deal with all of the world's religions. I would imagine that would be a task that would be accomplished around the time that hell freezes over. Considering that there is more than religion that believes everyone that doesn't believe in their religion will go to hell, hell has to have a rapidly expanding population. Unless the volume of hell is exanding faster than the number of people going to hell, I wouldn't expect hell to freeze over any time soon.

 

[Anttech]

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.

why does God have to be a "being"

I aggree with Mr El Hombre on this one... so you are all wrong naa naa naa naa

 

[Danger]

This has been linked before, but it's always worth seeing again, and since Bob brought it up...

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/hellthrm.html

 

[tribdog]

They are popping out of space, and space is something.

I don't exactly agree with that, but I'm of the opinion that things are popping into existence in nothingness as well, but we can not see that happening because nothingness would have to be outside our reality, according to your definition of nothing.
and these things are not popping out of space, they are popping out of nothing, into space. They don't take any energy from space to come into being.

 

[KingNothing]

I'm glad to see that it drew a like reaction from other science-oriented people. Bob, can you name some of these religions that believe in an eternal universe without a creator?

Also, Tribdog, do you have any links to the 'popping in and out' stuff you were talking about? I'm unfamiliar with QM

 

[Evo]

I'm glad to see that it drew a like reaction from other science-oriented people. Bob, can you name some of these religions that believe in an eternal universe without a creator?

The Piraha of South America have no creation myths.

 

[wolram]

I don't exactly agree with that, but I'm of the opinion that things are popping into existence in nothingness as well, but we can not see that happening because nothingness would have to be outside our reality, according to your definition of nothing.
and these things are not popping out of space, they are popping out of nothing, into space. They don't take any energy from space to come into being.

Popping out of nothing how can some thing pop out of nothing Please explain where science says that, "some thing" can pop out
of , "nothing".

 

[tribdog]

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae605.cfm"
and don't f'n laugh at me
and then apologize

 

[wolram]

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae605.cfm"
and don't f'n laugh at me
and then apologize

This is not something from nothing, anyone that tells you that something can
come from absolute nothing is just spouting meta physics, at the very least the
idea is untestable, and i am not laughing at you, it is way science can be twisted to ones own end that makes me laugh, i am sure if you post a question
in the above science forums you will get a better answer.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

The OP doesn't define God as "the creator" of the universe.:

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".

It simply asserts that God created the universe, without having defined God as "the creator." This: "It is a fact, not a mystery, that God, whatever or whoever God might be, created the Universe," is not a definition, but an assertion.

If the Universe was created by two branes colliding then the collision is God.

I'm going to bet that since the book is "World Religions" that the "whatever" in "whatever or whoever God might be" refers to concepts like "eternal life force" or "superconsciousness" rather than branes and black holes, which aren't concepts attached to any religion.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The OP doesn't define God as "the creator" of the universe.:
It simply asserts that God created the universe, without having defined God as "the creator." This: "It is a fact, not a mystery, that God, whatever or whoever God might be, created the Universe," is not a definition, but an assertion.
I'm going to bet that since the book is "World Religions" that the "whatever" in "whatever or whoever God might be" refers to concepts like "eternal life force" or "superconsciousness" rather than branes and black holes, which aren't concepts attached to any religion.

Okay. Perhaps strictly speaking I misused the word 'define'. I misspelt 'because' too. I'm a bad man, what can I say?!? I inferred the text was defining God as such.

As for branes and black holes, they were my examples. You're free to think up your own. My point was that nearly everyone before I posted was assuming God to be a thinking creator when the OP words things in such a way that strongly suggests non-thinking creators and even events are candidates: "whatever or whoever God might be".

I threw it out there. Ignore or incorporate as you wish, I don't care.

 

[Entropy]

They don't take any energy from space to come into being.

I though they came out of zero-point energy? Or am I wrong?

 

[scott1]

There's really no proof God doesn't exist or he does exist.I know in bible it says that Earth created in 7-days 6000 years ago but couldn't that just be a miss translation like it really the Earth was created in 7 billion years because they didn't have good way of telling time it was written before people started counting years I'am not sure if they could months yet.There's nothing in the bible that said how long ago it was created.When I read it said the Fish water was created before land and animals that's the same oder Biologist said they were created.

 

[Leah]

Everything starts with a beginning and everything ends with nothing! So existence began from nothing. How did existence start? That is the ultimate question. I think a meteorite crashed into our planet that had life in it, and poof! life formed. But then you can ask the evolutionists and the creationists. Evo has the best answer and that is there is no answer at all! Right?