Who Or What Created The Universe?

[Theland]

Dismiss God as the author and creator of the universe, but what is your hypothesis? Or are you simply satisfied to say, "I don't know?"

[naomi24]

Jim, //It's consistent with my general rule that you understand the Universe better by looking at it yourself//

That applies to most things - including the Bible.

[jim360]

Well yes, but if I wanted to understand the *Bible* I'd look at that. For the purposes of understanding the Universe, I consider it to be irrelevant. It was written by people who were wrong about quite a lot.

[fender62]

atoms neutrons and all the other scientific priciples, the ones we know and the ones we are yet to discover, and we will discover ! better question is why does it have to be some deity god, and if their is a god he made some bad mistakes, let alone a deity who needs constant adoration and praise worship call it what you will, perhaps your god has low opinion of himself or a dictator like fat boy in north korea. it's not rational, but religionists dont do rational or logic.

[naomi24]

Jim, Round in yet another circle. If you haven't looked at the bible and understood it, you've no case for saying it's wrong.

[jim360]

Or, perhaps, I *did* look at it once and decided that, certainly from any understanding of the physical world, it was completely irrelevant, and have no interest in using it as a further source for understanding anything other than the history and morality of Christianity.

[naomi24]

Jim, Yes, I remember you 'looking'.

[jim360]

Thanks, Naomi, I do 'value' your opinion on my research.

[naomi24]

Always happy to help. :o)

[jim360]

"Jim, Round in yet another circle."

My name has "360" in it for a reason :P

[naomi24]

Clearly.

[fender62]

[jim360]

But there's actually a serious point to this. It's impossible to know for certain whether something is worth your time studying or not unless you study it in the first place. So you could, presumably, study everything and decide afterwards -- but that's horribly inefficient. The number of plausible things to check grows faster than anyone can keep up with.

So you have to reach an assessment sooner than that if you want to find the stuff that's actually relevant to whatever topic you are researching. Sometimes that ends up meaning that you miss something important but it's better than getting bogged down in trivia, having to spend ages trying to refute something that is obviously wrong, or whatever, and you miss the important stuff anyway because you never found time for it.

As far as I'm concerned, then:

(a) my studies of the Bible aren't complete in a literal sense, because I could always read it more deeply and thoroughly than I have done;

(b) but I've already spent enough time on it to be happy that the Bible provides nothing of substance if I want to understand physics, or the origin of the Universe, or the origin of mankind, or anything else that interests me at the moment. Such as, you know -- physics.

You are free to persuade me otherwise, of course, or at least to try to, but in the meantime I've created time for myself to spend more productively (well, in theory at least).

[jno]

and you're spending it on AB, jim? Good man.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//Or are you simply satisfied to say, "I don't know?"//

Well, that is my answer, but, no, Theland, I'm not satisfied with it: I remain curious and want to know the next thing science, or even philosophy, perhaps (I don't include theology) has to say.

A year or so ago I read "A Universe from Nothing" by Laurence Krauss. It went on about quantum fluctuations and the like. Sadly I just couldn't understand it.

In a sense, of course, that's the story of my life. (I know I'm digressing, but as a Christian you'll forgive me.). In my teens I read a slender volume in the Pelican series called "A Layman's Guide to Relativity". Couldn't understand it. Then in my twenties I found another populist paperback on the same topic. And I couldn't understand that either. Fast forward a good few years and I'm watching a series on BBC about quantum mechanics presented by a physicist called Jim - Professor Al-Khalili. Time I got past the episode on entanglement and on to one about the quantum frog (I'm not making this up} my mind was all of a daze. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Khalili or either author for my bewilderment.

I remember years ago (again in my youth) Freddy Ayer saying that he had never had a sense of awe. I thought this was strange and sad. I don't think this is true of most scientists. A favourite saying of mine is this by Sir Arthur Eddington:

"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

[mibn2cweus]

'Tis better to know what you don't know than to not know what you think you do.

[Vulcanite10]

The fact that the universe is expanding lends credence to the big bang theory. However the human brain cannot come to terms with the concept of infinity or a single point of infinite mass.

[naomi24]

Jim, //You are free to persuade me otherwise, of course, or at least to try to,//

Why on earth would you think I'd bother to do that? If you can't support your arguments it's your problem, not mine.

[jim360]

I reckon I can support them plenty well enough, if I were really pressed to do so. But the support for arguments, or otherwise, is tested by actually sharing them with others. I've had plenty of arguments or debates with you in the past and, along the way, I've had plenty of opportunities to refine some of my ideas, discard others, and even, on occasion, recognise that some of them actually did stand up to scrutiny.

[naomi24]

Jim, //I reckon I can support them plenty well enough//

If you can't knock the other bloke's argument for six I'm not sure how that works, but if you're happy with it no need to explain it to me.

[Theland]

Let's get back to basics. Krause (?) reckons the universe created itself from a quantum fluctuation. Hawking thinks the preexistence of gravity is responsible. Dawkins is a fan of the multiverse. The fact is, a universe from NOTHING means a universe from the total absence of ANYTHING. The atheist high priests shy away from that. Only an eternal MIND fits the bill. Otherwise you trap yourself in a chain of asking, " how was he created, and him, and him, and him, and him and him, and him, and turtles all the way down.