Who Told Vorderman People Care What She...
News0 min ago
The Created Universe.
150 Answers
We agree, I presume, that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago.
That being the case, there are, in my opinion, only two possible causes for the created universe.
First, what I believe, it was created by God.
Secondly, what atheists believe, no God was involved, but it was created by completely natural processes.
If you support the latter view, what would you suggest were these natural creative processes, and how would they work?
That being the case, there are, in my opinion, only two possible causes for the created universe.
First, what I believe, it was created by God.
Secondly, what atheists believe, no God was involved, but it was created by completely natural processes.
If you support the latter view, what would you suggest were these natural creative processes, and how would they work?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Even if you could prove the existence of a 'creator' that wouldn't prove the existence of a 'God'. The two are NOT synonymous.
As an analogy, a scientist could create life in a test tube and then walk away from it. The fact that he was a 'creator' wouldn't mean that the life he'd created would in anyway need to be dependent upon him and neither would it make him a 'moral arbiter' of the way that the lifeform then developed.
As an analogy, a scientist could create life in a test tube and then walk away from it. The fact that he was a 'creator' wouldn't mean that the life he'd created would in anyway need to be dependent upon him and neither would it make him a 'moral arbiter' of the way that the lifeform then developed.
(I like the Buenchico analogy in the first post: it's not one I've thought of myself or seen before.)
Good evening, Theland. Don't know the answer to the "something or nothing" question. But I do know what appear to me obvious weaknesses in the theist's case.
The traditional criticism of the God thesis is that it "explains" the origins of the Universe by positing a still greater mystery: in common parlance "Who made God?".
And that criticism has been traditionally answered by the ontological arguments of Anselm and Aquinas (whom you may not regard highly - I don't know) going back a lot further to Aristotle. You know, the prime mover who's a necessary being etc.
Personally I've always thought those arguments mystical nonsense. But, then again, the average thicko like you and me - i.e. people who haven't won a Nobel prize for physics - might well feel the same about quantum mechanics.
But for the purposes of this post let's concede the principle that the Universe is the product of an intelligent designer - let's use the short-cut "God" - and return to the point of Buenchico's analogy.
This was stated (in rather different terms) in Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". In that work Hume's Buenchico (called Philo) asks:
"Is the Universe we see the best that God could do? Could it be an apprentice piece by a God learning his craft, perhaps? Or the work of a superannuated God who's lost his touch?"
That's a reasonable query to someone who quotes Psalm 19's "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork", isn't it?
And then there's the following verse: "The law of the Lord is perfect..." which we might take as a reference to God's goodness and concern for man.
Buenchico/Philo goes on to ask:
"In the absence of revelation and just looking at the facts available to our senses:
" What can we know by observation of God? What reasonable inferences can we draw about His reasons for making us, His possible intentions for us, and, indeed, His moral character? The Greeks portrayed Poseidon as a god who, on a good day, would offer smooth passage across tranquil seas with favourable winds, but, not sufficiently propitiated, might strike the sea bed with his trident and cause tsunamis. Are the observable facts about the way the world operates more consistent with the Greek notion of divine caprice, or with the Christian notion of God's infinite goodness?".
And that's a reasonable question, too, isn't it?
A very good night, Theland. I'm back to the final episode of Simon Schama's "History of the Jews" on BBC4.
Good evening, Theland. Don't know the answer to the "something or nothing" question. But I do know what appear to me obvious weaknesses in the theist's case.
The traditional criticism of the God thesis is that it "explains" the origins of the Universe by positing a still greater mystery: in common parlance "Who made God?".
And that criticism has been traditionally answered by the ontological arguments of Anselm and Aquinas (whom you may not regard highly - I don't know) going back a lot further to Aristotle. You know, the prime mover who's a necessary being etc.
Personally I've always thought those arguments mystical nonsense. But, then again, the average thicko like you and me - i.e. people who haven't won a Nobel prize for physics - might well feel the same about quantum mechanics.
But for the purposes of this post let's concede the principle that the Universe is the product of an intelligent designer - let's use the short-cut "God" - and return to the point of Buenchico's analogy.
This was stated (in rather different terms) in Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". In that work Hume's Buenchico (called Philo) asks:
"Is the Universe we see the best that God could do? Could it be an apprentice piece by a God learning his craft, perhaps? Or the work of a superannuated God who's lost his touch?"
That's a reasonable query to someone who quotes Psalm 19's "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork", isn't it?
And then there's the following verse: "The law of the Lord is perfect..." which we might take as a reference to God's goodness and concern for man.
Buenchico/Philo goes on to ask:
"In the absence of revelation and just looking at the facts available to our senses:
" What can we know by observation of God? What reasonable inferences can we draw about His reasons for making us, His possible intentions for us, and, indeed, His moral character? The Greeks portrayed Poseidon as a god who, on a good day, would offer smooth passage across tranquil seas with favourable winds, but, not sufficiently propitiated, might strike the sea bed with his trident and cause tsunamis. Are the observable facts about the way the world operates more consistent with the Greek notion of divine caprice, or with the Christian notion of God's infinite goodness?".
And that's a reasonable question, too, isn't it?
A very good night, Theland. I'm back to the final episode of Simon Schama's "History of the Jews" on BBC4.
Once you've bought into the presupposition of God as an explanation for anything you've effectively slammed the door shut on any further avenue of inquiry leading to a genuine explanation for or understanding of reality.
Science has uncovered a great many secrets in our own lifetime regarding the nature of our universe, has in fact made predictions regarding the process by which it came to its current state proven by observations no one before then knew would be possible, not by making it up or believing what we've been told for millennia but by acknowledging what remains to be discovered.
The truth can not be brought down but rather waits on us to learn and to rise to it. What you've demonstrated to me over the years is that your's is not a pursuit of truth but rather only for affirmation of what you refuse not to believe from those willing to support if not join you. In the mean time I remain on the other side of the door you slammed shut long ago, continuing in my search for the answers to questions you insist on believing you've already found.
Science has uncovered a great many secrets in our own lifetime regarding the nature of our universe, has in fact made predictions regarding the process by which it came to its current state proven by observations no one before then knew would be possible, not by making it up or believing what we've been told for millennia but by acknowledging what remains to be discovered.
The truth can not be brought down but rather waits on us to learn and to rise to it. What you've demonstrated to me over the years is that your's is not a pursuit of truth but rather only for affirmation of what you refuse not to believe from those willing to support if not join you. In the mean time I remain on the other side of the door you slammed shut long ago, continuing in my search for the answers to questions you insist on believing you've already found.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
The argument that the Universe needs a creator inevitably leads the question, "Who created the creator then?" This also poses the same two answers as before: either the creator was itself created by something previous, or the creator needed no further creation -- because it has always been around, or because it can create itself, it matters not.
The same logic applies to the Universe, which is perfectly capable of creating itself. Exactly how it achieved that, I have no idea. But it's worth taking the idea seriously, and accepting that there is no need for the Universe to have been created.
Spathy's "eternal Universe" idea needs, at the very least, extensive modifications. A literally eternal Universe would have suffered "heat death" long ago, for example, while the "steady state" model is, at least currently, ruled out by observation. Maybe the Universe is somehow cyclic, Big Bangs occurring periodically over a stupidly long time scale, but it's not clear (to me at least) how you could ever distinguish that from a Universe that had only one "beginning".
The same logic applies to the Universe, which is perfectly capable of creating itself. Exactly how it achieved that, I have no idea. But it's worth taking the idea seriously, and accepting that there is no need for the Universe to have been created.
Spathy's "eternal Universe" idea needs, at the very least, extensive modifications. A literally eternal Universe would have suffered "heat death" long ago, for example, while the "steady state" model is, at least currently, ruled out by observation. Maybe the Universe is somehow cyclic, Big Bangs occurring periodically over a stupidly long time scale, but it's not clear (to me at least) how you could ever distinguish that from a Universe that had only one "beginning".
I seem to recall someone convincing me that the universe could be infinite if the big bang occurred in an already infinite universe. Does that imply an eternal universe that has experienced at least one big bang ? Unsure what happens to time (with consequential questions about "eternal") between big bangs though.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Hi Theland
I’ve been trying to work out why you continue to probe these issues.
I’ve come to some conclusions. Am I am somewhere close?
1. You are seeking to understand the physicists’/Cosmologists’ views on the origins of the universe, and intend to interpret their limited ability to offer an explanation that suits your worldview as confirming that worldview.
2. You think that you can convert others to your worldview.
3. You’re looking for cracks in the explanations offered by the amateurs on these boards, so that you can prepare arguments to your fellows in real face-to-face conversations.
I suspect we are arguing from different perspectives.
The Cosmologists would say the ‘god-creation’ argument is a non-argument. There is no verifiable, repeatable evidence for it.
The supposition that a god created the universe generates so many inconsistencies in other well-established theories that it is ruled out by those with professional understanding of these issues.
Contrast that with the supposition that the Universe is made up of 95% dark matter and dark energy. This supposition was developed to explain the expansion of the universe, as observed fact, in repeatable, verifiable experiments.
The supposition that dark matter and dark energy exist – even though no-one can say what they are or how they might be identified – helps to explain, in quantifiable ways, various aspects of the universe for which we have few other good explanations. These include the distribution of galaxies across space; the total angular momentum in the universe and so on.
The key point is that there is a quantifiable, rigorous, peer-reviewed mathematical explanation of the dark matter phenomenon, that can make predictions that could be verified either now, or at some future date.
That is not true of the ‘god proposal’. In this sense, cosmologists do not even reject god as an explanation for the origins of the universe. It is not worth addressing as a serious proposal.
Whereas the supposition of dark matter is taken seriously, because those who proposed it have given a detailed mathematical model of what is happening; quantified the amounts of energy involved and ensured that the theory is consistent with established knowledge. If a cosmologist were to propose an idea without all that mathematical modelling and quantification and demonstrating consistency with existing ideas and knowledge, they would – rightly – be ridiculed.
However, there is also the perspective of the interested amateur.
That would be me and maybe you. For us, there is no professional penalty in proposing creative ideas for the origins of the universe.
As an interested amateur, you are proposing that the universe was created by a god. There is no evidence, nor mathematical justification, nor is there any consistency with pre-existing knowledge for that proposal.
The initial responses to your post by Buenchico, vetuste_ennemi, mibn2cweus and Jim360 effectively destroy your argument from the perspective of common sense, philosophy and epistemology respectively. I’ve done my best from a scientific perspective.
Your argument does not stand up to scrutiny on any level
The only grounds you have left to propose your argument is faith.
And here is the power of faith. The faithful can assert anything as an axiom of belief, even though it runs counter to intellectual argument in multiple dimensions and contradicts the knowable evidence.
Returning to my original suggestions at the top of this response, it is clear that few of us will be converted to your worldview. It is also clear from your behaviour so far that you are not really interested in any other explanation than your own worldview.
So I guess that by arguing against your position, we are simply equipping you for further arguments and discussions in your bid to impress your worldview on others in your offline world.
Wow, you’re going to look like a really smart guy in those discussions :-)
I’ve been trying to work out why you continue to probe these issues.
I’ve come to some conclusions. Am I am somewhere close?
1. You are seeking to understand the physicists’/Cosmologists’ views on the origins of the universe, and intend to interpret their limited ability to offer an explanation that suits your worldview as confirming that worldview.
2. You think that you can convert others to your worldview.
3. You’re looking for cracks in the explanations offered by the amateurs on these boards, so that you can prepare arguments to your fellows in real face-to-face conversations.
I suspect we are arguing from different perspectives.
The Cosmologists would say the ‘god-creation’ argument is a non-argument. There is no verifiable, repeatable evidence for it.
The supposition that a god created the universe generates so many inconsistencies in other well-established theories that it is ruled out by those with professional understanding of these issues.
Contrast that with the supposition that the Universe is made up of 95% dark matter and dark energy. This supposition was developed to explain the expansion of the universe, as observed fact, in repeatable, verifiable experiments.
The supposition that dark matter and dark energy exist – even though no-one can say what they are or how they might be identified – helps to explain, in quantifiable ways, various aspects of the universe for which we have few other good explanations. These include the distribution of galaxies across space; the total angular momentum in the universe and so on.
The key point is that there is a quantifiable, rigorous, peer-reviewed mathematical explanation of the dark matter phenomenon, that can make predictions that could be verified either now, or at some future date.
That is not true of the ‘god proposal’. In this sense, cosmologists do not even reject god as an explanation for the origins of the universe. It is not worth addressing as a serious proposal.
Whereas the supposition of dark matter is taken seriously, because those who proposed it have given a detailed mathematical model of what is happening; quantified the amounts of energy involved and ensured that the theory is consistent with established knowledge. If a cosmologist were to propose an idea without all that mathematical modelling and quantification and demonstrating consistency with existing ideas and knowledge, they would – rightly – be ridiculed.
However, there is also the perspective of the interested amateur.
That would be me and maybe you. For us, there is no professional penalty in proposing creative ideas for the origins of the universe.
As an interested amateur, you are proposing that the universe was created by a god. There is no evidence, nor mathematical justification, nor is there any consistency with pre-existing knowledge for that proposal.
The initial responses to your post by Buenchico, vetuste_ennemi, mibn2cweus and Jim360 effectively destroy your argument from the perspective of common sense, philosophy and epistemology respectively. I’ve done my best from a scientific perspective.
Your argument does not stand up to scrutiny on any level
The only grounds you have left to propose your argument is faith.
And here is the power of faith. The faithful can assert anything as an axiom of belief, even though it runs counter to intellectual argument in multiple dimensions and contradicts the knowable evidence.
Returning to my original suggestions at the top of this response, it is clear that few of us will be converted to your worldview. It is also clear from your behaviour so far that you are not really interested in any other explanation than your own worldview.
So I guess that by arguing against your position, we are simply equipping you for further arguments and discussions in your bid to impress your worldview on others in your offline world.
Wow, you’re going to look like a really smart guy in those discussions :-)
There is no evidence to suggest that "our" universe is the only one, even as "big" as it is to us. It could be one of countless billions of others - we can never know, as Aquinas said, God is unknowable, or said by Chuang-tzu several centuries before that;
[i] There is something obscure which is complete
before Heaven and Earth arose;
tranquil, quiet,
Standing alone without change,
moving around without peril.
It could be the mother of everything.
I don't know its name,
and call it Tao. [i]
[i] There is something obscure which is complete
before Heaven and Earth arose;
tranquil, quiet,
Standing alone without change,
moving around without peril.
It could be the mother of everything.
I don't know its name,
and call it Tao. [i]
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
