Philosophy Question: Universe created from what?

ChillBill said:
When people say we use 10% of our brain, they don't mean that 90% of our neurons do nothing. 10% of the brain can be used for intelligent discussing, while the remaining 90% acts as data storage, control of insticts, dreams, control of the body etc. At least that's how I see it. Using 10% of the brain means that this percentage is responsible for all the actions you are conscious of. For example, the part of the brain that is responsible for reminding you to breath or keep your heart beating steadily isn't really part of the brain that helps you think logically.
Click to expand...
I do see the logic and reasoning here, but if I can remember correctly, not every single part of the brain is always constantly firing. Neurons have to rest every now and then, so if a brain is working at 100% all the time, there will be complications.
Now, as for the Big Bang, I don't really have much to say on it, except for that it does seem to be logical, eventhough a few other theories are equally logical/reasonable in their own sense. Take the warmhole theory (I do believe it has been mentioned before), for example. This theory states that our universe was sucked through some sort of inter-dimensional wormhole and the big bang resulted on the other end.
Seems legit.
 
I read most of the replies, and a brief summary of what people has said is (at least, from what I understood): big bang is how the universe originated. God created the big bang.
I do not and will not criticize any religions, since no one has yet proven its existence or it's inexistance, but hiding behind the name of a god in a 'scientific' debat is worthless. I understand that no one can possibly define the true origin of the Universe, but as for now, people are making hypothesis based on some part of their knowledge.
If there is a god who knows the truth, but won t be kind enough to tell us, what s the point of believing in him for an answer to our question? Again, no offense, we are in a science sub forum.
 
I see the world around us as evidence enough for creation, (*1) but don't take that lightly. I don't just say that casually or as a cop-out. I have every reason to believe that a creator is a logical answer to the universe. I'm on my phone but I'll elaborate in a future post the details & evidence of my claim.
Now, you say there is no point in believing in a god who doesn't share their truth? Isn't that a little selfish? Now let's assume that there is a god. If they created everything in the world, it seems like they would be powerful enough to be entitled to decide whether or not to share anything with his creation. It seems to me that if such an all-powerul and all-knowing being existed than it would obviouslt be able to comprehend more than his creation. (*2) Christianity says that God DID reveal truth & that God actually joined creation. I'm not saying that you should believe all of this, just understand that denying a god's possible existence just because he doesn't tell us what we want is essentially us telling our creator what he should and shouldn't be doing to make things convenient for us. Even someone who doesn't believe in a god can see why that doesn't make sense.
For those who are interested:
(*1) Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1
(*2) Isaiah 55:9
On my phone, sorry for spelling errors! :]
 
safariblade said:
bacon said:
That said, my response to why I see no reason for God's inclusion into a theory-of-everything (which is a totally valid question that I'd love to answer) might have to wait...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you are suddenly choosing to not discuss things here, but even so, I'd like a PM when you get the chance.
Click to expand...

It is quickly becoming apparent that there is so much being discussed in this thread that I disagree with, that responding to it all without a keyboard seems a little daunting.
 
Zeto said:
I read most of the replies, and a brief summary of what people has said is (at least, from what I understood): big bang is how the universe originated. God created the big bang.
I do not and will not criticize any religions, since no one has yet proven its existence or it's inexistance, but hiding behind the name of a god in a 'scientific' debat is worthless. I understand that no one can possibly define the true origin of the Universe, but as for now, people are making hypothesis based on some part of their knowledge.
If there is a god who knows the truth, but won t be kind enough to tell us, what s the point of believing in him for an answer to our question? Again, no offense, we are in a science sub forum.
Click to expand...

When we say God, we don't necessarily mean an old-looking man with a white beard who lives in the sky. As safariblade stated, the world itself implies that there is a creator. Take it from a scientific point. What is the chance that something as big and complicated as the universe is a product of luck? Accepting a creator is quite reasonable here. It doesn't have to be the God of the Bible. Perhaps it's an ancient energy being whose mind works in such a way that we cannot understand it. Perhaps it's something different. But I firmly believe that something is behind the creation, and that something ain't luck.
 
^to all the people who believe in a Sole creator of the Universe: ok cool stuff, now can you please explain a little HOW God created the Universe without only relying on your imagination?
I got nothing against the idea of a Sole creator behind everything, but as for now, most of you are only answering to "who created the Universe". From my understanding of the topic of this thread, this is a discussion about how the Universe was created, and what might have been the origin of the Big Bang (if this hypothesis is true).

back to topic, I wonder how time will be affected by gravitationnal forces? I remember that a proof of special and general relativity, an airplane with an atomic clock flew around the world twice, and the time indicated was not the same as the time on the clock which stayed on earth's surface (found out it s the Hafele-Keating experiment). This was because of the velocity and gravitationnal force. imagine now, at the beginning of the Universe, when every particle was one! Maybe dimensions such as time was created along the big bang...
 
(off topic topic?)
I believe that there is a sole creator, (God, Jesus Christ incarnate) but I'm not sure how He went about creating the universe. If I had to guess (and really this whole topic is moot because science really does not deal with the supernatural at all. If there is a being that can and does act outside of natural laws, one can't prove or disprove the existence/influence of such a being using only natural evidence.) the "Big Bang" was initiated by said creator. In my opinion, God can work outside of natural laws and therefore is not bound by them. As the only known being allowed to act outside of natural laws, it only makes sense to me that He placed them and arranged the universe to work as organized and mechanically as possible. Why? Throughout the bible laws are placed and upheld religiously (hehe) and the personality of the divine was shown through these laws. This God loves order and peace. Therefore it makes sense that the universe operates automatically with it's own recycling systems etc to make a peaceful stable universe. The only way that any of this is possible is for a being to have acted outside of natural laws, created energy then placed laws to contain this energy in a peaceful manner. This is also shown in the laws of thermodynamics where it is stated that the total energy of the universe is 0, each unit of energy having it's equal and opposite unit (anti matter, gravity), keeping a very delicate (and explosive might I add) balance.
It isn't the theory of relativity, but it's an extension of that.
On topic, Time has been shown to be a function of gravity, more gravity causing slower time movement and vice versa. There is a theory floating around about the relative age of the universe as it relates to the distant planets and stars theorizing that where earth is located in the universe is close to the gravitational center of the universe. This would cause outlying stars (less gravity) to age much more quickly and appear to be much much older than the rest of the universe, though in terms of (time?) of creation of the matter composing the stars is the same age as the rest of the universe. I haven't read the theory though, I'll post a reference later on the theory that I posted about.
 
ChillBill said:
When we say God, we don't necessarily mean an old-looking man with a white beard who lives in the sky. As safariblade stated, the world itself implies that there is a creator. Take it from a scientific point. What is the chance that something as big and complicated as the universe is a product of luck? Accepting a creator is quite reasonable here. It doesn't have to be the God of the Bible. Perhaps it's an ancient energy being whose mind works in such a way that we cannot understand it. Perhaps it's something different. But I firmly believe that something is behind the creation, and that something ain't luck.
Click to expand...

You're shifting the question as bacon implied before; 'I don't understand how the universe came to be; a god created it, ergo now I know how the universe came to be.' However this doesn't explain the origin of the god(s), let alone the fact how he/she/they/it created it.

'What is the chance that something as big and complicated as the universe is a product of luck?' This question is pretty much redundant. Let's assume that it was a matter of luck, a small chance. You could only ask that question if that universe actually happened and brought us (or any sentient being for that matter) along with it. So in order to ask this question, one must be in a universe that did work out.

As we don't even have a single clue about that very first moment in our universe, we cannot even conclude it's a product of luck, perhaps it is, perhaps it there is a multiversal law that explains our universe. We don't know if we are lucky that this universe exists, because we have no other (failed) universes to compare it with.

'Accepting a creator is quite reasonable here.' I remember an article about how humans expect an amazing and profound explanation for an amazing and profound event (in this case the universe). I will look for it.. This is more a philosophical question, than a scientific one. A lot of people see the world as an amazing place full of wonders, therefore the explanation of it must also be amazing and wonderful, however this of course is not true. What if just luck is that amazing answer you are seeking for?

anythingbutgrass said:
On topic, Time has been shown to be a function of gravity, more gravity causing slower time movement and vice versa. There is a theory floating around about the relative age of the universe as it relates to the distant planets and stars theorizing that where earth is located in the universe is close to the gravitational center of the universe. This would cause outlying stars (less gravity) to age much more quickly and appear to be much much older than the rest of the universe, though in terms of (time?) of creation of the matter composing the stars is the same age as the rest of the universe. I haven't read the theory though, I'll post a reference later on the theory that I posted about.
Click to expand...

The universe has no center, either everywhere is its center, or nowhere (but is doesn't really matter how you see that). I'd like to see a link to some article about this theory, I am quite curious.
 
lol anythingbutgrass. No offense, but supernatural studies is a science. Cryptology, it is known as.
While you do have a somewhat vague point, I'd like to add that chaos theory is, if I understand the gyst of it, something that you didn't take into count. Then again, it's not one of my well-researched scientific theory, so I could be thinking of something totally different.
And I don't think you have the right idea of how the theory of relativity works and how it is applied and to what it is applied to.
 
@Pokequaza: I never said that I know for sure that God created the universe. I'm not even a religious person to begin with. But because I think that the universe is a wonder, I come to theorize that something beyond our understanding created it. True, I cannot prove it or disprove it. But neither can I say whether or not it was by chance that in the beginning of the universe matter was just a bit more than anti-matter. It is a philosophical question. I'd love to be able to explain it with logic (I love logic), but sometimes I just can't. This is all about theories.
 
Why can't we appreciate something for its beauty, for its complexity, without having to attach the haphazard and circular belief that it was the result of something more complex that, whoops, is conveniently outside the Universe ("outside" makes no sense anyway) so we cannot prove or disprove it?

Complex systems arise from simple axioms! This is a universal theme!

Special relativity? Just assume the speed of light is constant for all observers, and it follows all from there. General relativity? It all starts from the realisation that gravitational force is observer dependant. Quantum theory? Reducible to a single equation that relates position and momentum. Theory of evolution? Genes are subject to random mutations that are occasionally favoured by natural selection pressure. Cosmology? Assume matter in the universe is evenly distributed (more or less) and that there is no preferred location. Computing? Statements are merely true or false, 1 or 0. Mathematics? X = X. Entropy? It's just statistics at the heart.

These are fields which are all excellent at describing the Universe we see around us. They are also stupendously complex for most of us. But as I made clear (I hope), these ideas blossom from very simple, logical statements and blossom from there. Indeed, these theories are so strong, so elegant, because of the firm foundations of their bedrock axioms.

So, God. All that is really being said about Him in this thread is that He created the Universe. If no other criteria are being applied to what defines God, then He is completely indistinguishable from my personal assertion that the Universe is a self-contained, self referential entity. Both are responsible for the reality we see, both are "uncaused". I will of course argue that my proposition is more sound, as I am cutting out the middleman and avoiding any misrepresentation that the use if the word "God" is bound to create if I throw it about carelessly.

I am also of the view that the Universe is rational. That is, laws of nature manifest themselves in a beautiful mathematical language. I am pretty sure nobody can dispute this. All those theories I posted above are essentially mathematical in nature.

Mathematics is a wonderful system of logic that works both ways: One can build from a simple structure to complex theorems, and vice versa. All systems in the Universe, from the mightiest of galaxy clusters to the humble quark, interact via forces governed by mathematical relations. But as we have seen from the reversability of mathematics, the study of the here and now can tell us an awful lot about how things will be in different times, different locations, anything you care to define.

All things in the Universe interact via mathematical relations. So whatever you choose to define as God, who interacted with the Universe in order to create it, will by logical neccessity be part of the mathematical structure of the Universe. He therefore cannot hide, so to speak.

Will we ever find out?

I personally believe that, like all those theories I mentioned, the Universe has a simple law at the very heart of its mechanics. An indisputible, simple tautology that forms the bedrock of reality. I think the ambiguity of the traditional God and all the vague descriptions of Him are inadequate to serve as such an indisputable tautology.

What you can argue perhaps is that God arises out of logical necessity when it comes to that indisputable tautology. Like how special relativity just happens to arise out of simply assuming that the speed of light is always s constant

(cont) Indeed I am not at all closed to a deeper and more unified understanding of consciousness that could perhaps lead to a God-like entity. But only if it fits the logical nature of the universe, for logic is simply a prerequisite for an agent's existence. If you think you can prove such an agent, J'm all ears. But never have I seen an argument that I find convincing, so for now I see no reason to jump the gun and back something that has no proof or validation to speak of.

End of post. This is nowhere near to all that I wanted to say, but that's the gist of my thought process I guess. I apologise for the spelling mistakes and grammatical errors that no doubt litter this post.
 
Something i have thought for a long time, i will share it here:
We are human and we are fascinated by the world, say God, created. Physics rules make us move, make us think, make us live... and this can be compared to a turf of ants and a human being. One day, a man drops a sandwich near the ants, who take it for a miracle, and start on worshiping the Humans. But for us, that was a simple coincidence. What i want to bring out is that if really, there s a supernatural being out there (there=Universe), who, accidentally, created our world, its structure must be, for humans, infinitely complicated. Our universe may even be the size of a quantum string relatively for your "God". It must be justified that it won t pay much attentions to our Universe, and have most likely created the world without even noticing it. THEREFORE:
1, our so called "God" has no direct influence on our world, and obviously don t give a damn about us, humans.
2, our so called "God" won't help us understand the world.
In conclusion, please, let us stop talking about god that god this.

Unless if it s a Durant (cmon, we are still on pokebeach), you wouldnt care about some little ants, would you? :)
 
Haunted Water said:
lol anythingbutgrass. No offense, but supernatural studies is a science. Cryptology, it is known as.
While you do have a somewhat vague point, I'd like to add that chaos theory is, if I understand the gyst of it, something that you didn't take into count. Then again, it's not one of my well-researched scientific theory, so I could be thinking of something totally different.
And I don't think you have the right idea of how the theory of relativity works and how it is applied and to what it is applied to.
Click to expand...
It's entirely possible that I don't really know that much about the theory of relativity, but time is a function of gravity and velocity. I might have not said it clearly, but the theory had to do with varying local gravitational densities and how old stars affected are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Maybe this is a helpful article, states about the non existent center of the universe and the general shape of the universe.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=57085

Still, for the rebel mind (I probably fit here):
http://www.icr.org/article/304/243/
@ zeto
Except that most major religions do believe that God has had a direct influence on culture and ethics through the prophets and Christ. Islam believes that muhammed was a prophet that spoke for God, ancient cultures believed that their leaders were chosen by God and sometimes even God incarnate, so most people that believe in this infinitely complicated being that created the universe, also believe that It has had a direct influence in the world and is intimately tied with the creation of the universe. God is a very relevant topic for this thread to consider.
 
I said it before, I don't know if a superior being or not created the universe. And Zeto, pretty much you said what I probably didn't make clear enough: something created the universe, but not intentionally or with any care.
I think that I wrote an opinion somewhere before that the so called-God is an ancient energy being, based on a theory that says the only wait to create new matter is incredible amounts of energy. If we follow this principle, then we can say that pure energy is responsible for creation. Now whether or not that energy has a mind of its own, I don't know. But even if it has, it doesn't give a damn about us.
And please, stop assuming from my posts that I believe in God in a religious manner. I said it a hundred times, God is not something definite.
 
^ohhh, my bad.
But yeah, I was just saying that bringing up the founder of the Universe doesn't explain from what it was created.

@chillbill
So if I got it right, universe was 0, the source of energy is =, and the universe now is -1+1. It could make sense.

But...
http://www.universetoday.com/13377/why-theres-more-matter-than-antimatter-in-the-universe/
 
Finally, on topic. No more 'who' but 'how' and 'what'.
An interesting theory indeed. The way matter and anti-matter react and decay is different, thus leading to the survival of matter in the end. Did I get it right?
 
The topic of this thread inevitably asks for discussion of a possible "who" does the universe come from, that is not off topic. The closest thing to being off topic here was the stretched out debate on possible brain capacity limits (which shouldn't have been prolonged, I can take partial blame). So do not be afraid to explore all possibilities, keeping your options open helps facilitate the discussion.
 
Zeto said:
@chillbill
So if I got it right, universe was 0, the source of energy is =, and the universe now is -1+1. It could make sense.

But...
http://www.universetoday.com/13377/why-theres-more-matter-than-antimatter-in-the-universe/
Click to expand...

ChillBill said:
Finally, on topic. No more 'who' but 'how' and 'what'.
An interesting theory indeed. The way matter and anti-matter react and decay is different, thus leading to the survival of matter in the end. Did I get it right?
Click to expand...

It was expected after all. In the early 50's violations of the CP-symmetry have been found, and in order to balance the equation out, the T-symmetry has to have a violation in it as well. The decay of B-mesons and anti-B-mesons confirmed this, at least for B-mesons. However why they to this is a much more profounding question, and one that, to me, does not seem logical at first glance.
 
Red Striker said:
Sure, you can formulate what might've happened, but I want to know what actually happened. Tell me; can you prove to me that it really did happen?
Click to expand...

I can't prove to you anything happened. I can't prove you tied your shoes this morning, because you might have fainted and had a stranger walk in that tied your shoes and then left and fled for Canada. You could have woken up under odd circumstances that caused you not to remember you waking up. While you were unconscious, you could have had a vision that you did indeed tie your shoes. No one would be the wiser.

This is nonsense, but nothing can be proven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top