How did the universe come about?

[Sal Mercurio]

This is the one question that changes everything, the game changer. Here's what I mean by that. If the Atheist answers and says "I don't know", than that Atheist has just confessed to being an Agnostic. If the Atheist answers and says "The purple people eater created it", than the Atheist has just confessed to being a Creationist, with the creator being the purple people eater. If the Atheist answers and says "Nobody created it", again confessing a creator named Nobody.

Here's the thing, there was never nothing. There was always something. Nothing can't produce something because it can't produce anything...it's nothing, with nothing in it to make something, otherwise, it wouldn't be called nothing, it would be called something. Thus GOD - from everlasting to everlasting.

The big bang doesn't work because - "nothing" can not produce an accident, even by accident. The big bang can not exist without the Elemental "LAWS" : formation, compression, combustion...etc. Who made the laws?

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. What a breath of fresh air knowing that while we were laying in the dust of the earth GOD administered mouth to mouth and we became alive with a purpose - to express the righteousness of God to the whole creation.

Romans 8:1 19
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the children of God. Halleluiah!

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Well actually it is never stated in The Bible God created a universe, but it is stated again and again like it is stated in Genesis 1:1 God created heaven and earth. Too bad christians have let science, infect their understanding of God's creation describe in The Bible.

 

[Jonaitis]

This is the one question that changes everything, the game changer. Here's what I mean by that. If the Atheist answers and says "I don't know", than that Atheist has just confessed to being an Agnostic. If the Atheist answers and says "The purple people eater created it", than the Atheist has just confessed to being a Creationist, with the creator being the purple people eater. If the Atheist answers and says "Nobody created it", again confessing a creator named Nobody.

Here's the thing, there was never nothing. There was always something. Nothing can't produce something because it can't produce anything...it's nothing, with nothing in it to make something, otherwise, it wouldn't be called nothing, it would be called something. Thus GOD - from everlasting to everlasting.

The big bang doesn't work because - "nothing" can not produce an accident, even by accident. The big bang can not exist without the Elemental "LAWS" : formation, compression, combustion...etc. Who made the laws?

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. What a breath of fresh air knowing that while we were laying in the dust of the earth GOD administered mouth to mouth and we became alive with a purpose - to express the righteousness of God to the whole creation.

Romans 8:1 19
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the children of God. Halleluiah!

I don't think the Big Bang theories rule out the concept that there has always been something. In recent discussions, there have been talk of the possibility that our universe may not be the whole picture, but a part of a grander system, which may possibly include other universes (yes, the multiverse may be real), and that the "Big Bang" is not the first event, but one of many. I am not too knowledgeable on the subject, but this is what I got out of it. If true, though, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, it makes you wonder if creation is a never-ending process, and that our "reality" is not the only one in this process.

 

[Tuur]

This is the one question that changes everything, the game changer. Here's what I mean by that. If the Atheist answers and says "I don't know", than that Atheist has just confessed to being an Agnostic. If the Atheist answers and says "The purple people eater created it", than the Atheist has just confessed to being a Creationist, with the creator being the purple people eater. If the Atheist answers and says "Nobody created it", again confessing a creator named Nobody.

Here's the thing, there was never nothing. There was always something. Nothing can't produce something because it can't produce anything...it's nothing, with nothing in it to make something, otherwise, it wouldn't be called nothing, it would be called something. Thus GOD - from everlasting to everlasting.

The big bang doesn't work because - "nothing" can not produce an accident, even by accident. The big bang can not exist without the Elemental "LAWS" : formation, compression, combustion...etc. Who made the laws?

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. What a breath of fresh air knowing that while we were laying in the dust of the earth GOD administered mouth to mouth and we became alive with a purpose - to express the righteousness of God to the whole creation.

Romans 8:1 19
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the children of God. Halleluiah!

Eh...not necessarily. Speculations on how the universe began can be purely secular, and an answer "I don't know" is simply "I don't know," no more, no less. An atheist who says he doesn't know how the universe begin isn't making a statement about believing in God.

 

[Homeowner]

Here's the thing, there was never nothing. There was always something. Nothing can't produce something because it can't produce anything...it's nothing, with nothing in it to make something, otherwise, it wouldn't be called nothing, it would be called something.

Like cyclic Universe ?

A cyclic model (or oscillating model) is any of several cosmological models in which the universe follows infinite, or indefinite, self-sustaining cycles. For example, the oscillating universe theory briefly considered by Albert Einstein in 1930 theorized a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a Big Bang and ending with a Big Crunch; in the interim, the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.

 

[Tolworth John]

I don't think the Big Bang theories rule out the concept that there has always been something.

But that is the problem. At somepoint there was nothing, no energy, no matter, no laws of science. So what caused things to exist?

To argue that matter has always existed means explaining how the finite can fit into the infinite.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is the one question that changes everything, the game changer. Here's what I mean by that. If the Atheist answers and says "I don't know", than that Atheist has just confessed to being an Agnostic. If the Atheist answers and says "The purple people eater created it", than the Atheist has just confessed to being a Creationist, with the creator being the purple people eater. If the Atheist answers and says "Nobody created it", again confessing a creator named Nobody.

Here's the thing, there was never nothing. There was always something. Nothing can't produce something because it can't produce anything...it's nothing, with nothing in it to make something, otherwise, it wouldn't be called nothing, it would be called something. Thus GOD - from everlasting to everlasting.

The big bang doesn't work because - "nothing" can not produce an accident, even by accident. The big bang can not exist without the Elemental "LAWS" : formation, compression, combustion...etc. Who made the laws?

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. What a breath of fresh air knowing that while we were laying in the dust of the earth GOD administered mouth to mouth and we became alive with a purpose - to express the righteousness of God to the whole creation.

Romans 8:1 19
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the children of God. Halleluiah!

I thought the one question was that other one, "Who do you say that I Am?" While I'm as impressed by the weight of the mystery of the origins of the universe as much as anyone else, we're probably spending to much time trying to unspool the possibilities of String Theories (plural) to really ever fully understand the nature of the Universe.

In hindsight, it'll likely have been better to concentrate on Jesus and see Him as the game changer...

 

[Blade]

One of the things I want to hear is my Father name every star. I think that will be so wonderful. Since there is no time.. oh awesome!

 

[Homeowner]

But that is the problem. At somepoint there was nothing, no energy, no matter, no laws of science. So what caused things to exist?

How do you know that at some point there was nothing ? That everythings needs a cause to exist ?

Also when you bring up a God at these models and say He always existed because you know God then that is just special pleading argument wise.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.[1][2][3][4][5] It is the application of a double standard.[6][7]

 

[Tolworth John]

How do you know that at some point there was nothing ? That everythings needs a cause to exist ?

Also when you bring up a God at these models and say He always existed because you know God then that is just special pleading argument wise.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.[1][2][3][4][5] It is the application of a double standard.[6][7]

I didn't bring God into it.

Science of an expanding universe says that if it is expanding it had to start from something, which is where the big bang comes in.
A big bang implies that either energy, matter etc exploded into the universe or that an inert mass somehow started to expand.

Take your pick.
Either nothing into which everything erupted or an inert mass that somehow became active and expanded.

While ' I don't know ' can be honestly said, if the speaker is honest they have to also face the option that the supernatural is invollved.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

How did the universe come about?

If the atheist answers and says, "I don't know," then that atheist has just confessed to being an agnostic.

But only an agnostic about the origin of the universe. He wasn't answering a question about God. An atheist in this scenario could very well believe, "I don't know how the universe came about, but I know it wasn't by God" (because perhaps he has a good argument for the universe being a closed system, ruling out a creator). In that case he would be a strong atheist (thus definitely not an agnostic) who just happens to not know how the universe came about.

If the atheist answers and says, "Nobody created it," [he will have confessed] a creator named Nobody.

And that would be a juvenile word game, because no serious person genuinely thinks "nobody" means "somebody."

Here's the thing. There was never nothing. There was always something.

And that would be a problem for the traditional and widespread Christian belief in creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing).

By the way, an atheist who believes in a multiverse is unlikely to have a problem with the idea that "there was always something."

The Big Bang doesn't work because nothing cannot produce an accident, even by accident.

Again, what if "there was always something"?

— DialecticSkeptic

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

When you bring up a God in these models and say [that] he always existed ... then that is just special pleading, argument-wise.

Not necessarily. Read the quote from Wikipedia again, noticing that an exception is a case of special pleading only if no justification is provided for it being an exception (i.e., it is strictly ad hoc). The justification for God having always existed is his aseity and eternality, two things that cannot be said of the universe. That's why God is a special exception.

-- DialecticSkeptic

 

[Sal Mercurio]

Eh...not necessarily. Speculations on how the universe began can be purely secular, and an answer "I don't know" is simply "I don't know," no more, no less. An atheist who says he doesn't know how the universe begin isn't making a statement about believing in God.

An Atheist wants you to pay taxes for his/her public education theory on origins, but won't allow you to use YOUR portion of YOUR taxes to include a "Theory" of a creator. So, if there was always something, why not always someone, or a creator for that matter. To say one is Atheist and believe there is no God, must answer, in the absence of a "CREATOR", how the universe came about. Nothing would be a creator, because nothing created it, good bye atheism!

 

[Sal Mercurio]

haaaa...... who even understands a butterfly.... coming from a caterpillar yet .....

We don't have to fully understand God to be judged by God. I understand Romans 8: 19 "for the creation itself awaits eagerly for the revealing of the children of God. Trying to understand how God laid the foundation of the earth or the universe is futile, because we have to rely on our own understanding...how crazy is that. The bible says that the earth is suspended on nothing. Try figuring that one out. Gravity has no repulsion, so it isn't gravity that keeps us apart, or prevents all the heavenly bodies to collapse in a black hole. My only concern is what God wants from me. That is to guard that the condition of my soul is in right standing with God, and I line up with His righteousness. "for Abraham's faith was reckoned unto him as righteousness". That is all I NEED to know; and then the judgment.

 

[IoanC]

Just my opinion: everything that exists must have a source or be its own source. Nothing/no one can just be. There must be certain properties behind existence. Otherwise, money would just appear in your pocket. Whereas we know money must first be made by someone according to certain rules. God being self-existent and creating everything other than Himself is the perfect answer. Only God can be All-Powerful in order to have and understand properties that generate existence.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But that is the problem. At somepoint there was nothing, no energy, no matter, no laws of science. So what caused things to exist?

To argue that matter has always existed means explaining how the finite can fit into the infinite.

That's an appeal to philosophy more than to science. Scientifically speaking we can't look any further back than the big bang--but hypothetically it is entirely possible (but unknowable) that what we call the big bang was just one event in a long series of events that may go back infinitely. The issue here is simply that that question cannot be answered scientifically; at least not with our present knowledge.

Philosophically, as many have said since at least the time of Aristotle, infinite regress is offensive to reason; thus there must be a prime move, an uncaused cause. That there must have been something, itself uncaused, which is ultimately the cause for everything else. To what end that holds philosophically depends on which philosophers you ask.

And, ultimately, the question we are asking is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" That is, arguably, the most ancient philosophical question there is. If philosophy is borne of the question "Why is this the way it is?" then the ultimate why is, "Why is there anything at all?"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sal Mercurio]

That's an appeal to philosophy more than to science. Scientifically speaking we can't look any further back than the big bang--but hypothetically it is entirely possible (but unknowable) that what we call the big bang was just one event in a long series of events that may go back infinitely. The issue here is simply that that question cannot be answered scientifically; at least not with our present knowledge.

Philosophically, as many have said since at least the time of Aristotle, infinite regress is offensive to reason; thus there must be a prime move, an uncaused cause. That there must have been something, itself uncaused, which is ultimately the cause for everything else. To what end that holds philosophically depends on which philosophers you ask.

And, ultimately, the question we are asking is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" That is, arguably, the most ancient philosophical question there is. If philosophy is borne of the question "Why is this the way it is?" then the ultimate why is, "Why is there anything at all.

"Why is there anything at all" can't be answered by science because science doesn't have a clue how to escape death or God's judgment, or whether our life force (soul) which is not hard wired, or battery driven, or remotely driven, or attached to anything can not live beyond this life...they don't have a clue!

According to the bible, we are the only material life force in existence that by faith in God's word (Jesus) our faith will be reckoned unto us as righteousness, because unless one's faith is tested in this life and reckoned by God to be righteous, one can not enter the kingdom of heaven.

In other words, righteousness through a material living soul (Jesus) who has been tested and proven is the only existing being that can be considered a child of God. We were created to be faith beings designed to inherit the kingdom of God through faith in Jesus, and to express His righteousness to the creation without fail, because God Himself is greater than any temptation, any power or influence to deter us, and even death, and is able to deliver to us eternal life.

Now therefore, there is no excuse. This life is temporary because we are destined, not for temporary materialism that rusts, and fades and rots and dies, but rather to be changed into a living spiritual being.

This material Heaven and earth shall pass away, but God word (His promises) shall never pass away, and there's nothing science can do to stop Him.

God bless you and have a wonderful New Year

 

[Tolworth John]

Scientifically speaking we can't look any further back than the big bang--but hypothetically it is entirely possible (but unknowable) that what we call the big bang was just one event in a long series of events that may go back infinitely.

Again that is trying to fit the finite into the infinite.

The universe exists so something caused it to exist.
Something outside of time and space is unknowable, unless that somethng makes it self known.
Which brings us to religion and to the judeochristian set of beliefs.

 

[expos4ever]

This is the one question that changes everything, the game changer. Here's what I mean by that. If the Atheist answers and says "I don't know", than that Atheist has just confessed to being an Agnostic.

I believe I understand why you would write this, but I believe this argument does not really work. I can imagine a scenario in which an atheist would argue thusly:

"I have reasons for not believing in the existence of the God of the Bible (or of other religious traditions) that have nothing to do with the matter of how the universe came to be (for example, I might have issues with the "problem of evil"). The fact that I have no idea how the universe came to be is only an admission that its origins are mysterious. In other words, I concede that the origin of the universe is mysterious, but I have legitimate reasons for thinking that, whatever the "cause" was, it had nothing to do with a God in the traditional sense. Hence, I can be both an atheist and acknowledge that the creation of the universe is a deep mystery."

 

[expos4ever]

If the Atheist answers and says "The purple people eater created it", than the Atheist has just confessed to being a Creationist, with the creator being the purple people eater. If the Atheist answers and says "Nobody created it", again confessing a creator named Nobody.

I am quite sure no serious atheist would ever claim that any "being" (such as the purple people eater) created the universe.

To say that "nobody" created the universe certainly does not entail a commitment to a "creator named Nobody".

In summary, it is perfectly consistent to deny to existence of a creative agent of any kind. Based on the rest of your post, I suspect that you will object that some agent had to create the universe since every event must have a cause. I fully empathize with this line of thinking. But surely you recognize that the theist is in exactly the same bind since, by this same logic, they are forced to grapple with the question "what agent created God"?

The philosopher Kant argued that structuring events into cause-effect is a construct of the human mind. Assuming I am representing Kant correctly, this line of thinking leads to the conclusion that "things-in-themselves" (i.e., as they exist absent human cognition) do not necessarily have to obey "cause-effect" relations. In other words, I do not think it is a fundamental error of logic to assert that the origin of the universe does not require a creator.