What caused the Universe?

[victorinus]

No need to play stupid games.

the stupid game
-is-
not wanting to learn
-so-
what do you want?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I already have what I was looking for -
a working hypothesis -
without it you can't learn anything -
you start with a reasonable assumption
-and-
then test it
-but-
you have to want to learn -
wanting is the key -
you are wasting our time
-if-
you don't want to learn

I want to learn. Please tell us what hypothesis you have for the cause of the universe, and how we could test it.

 

[victorinus]

I want to learn. Please tell us what hypothesis you have for the cause of the universe, and how we could test it.

the hypothesis
-is-
God created the universe to test our free will
-so-
the questions are
-was the universe created?
-was there a purpose for creating the universe?
-could the universe create life?
-do we have free will?
-do we have reason?

 

[Chriliman]

Your Latin has failed you. It means from matter. Just like creation ex nihilo means creation from nothing. There is a third option, creation ex deo in which God is seen as creating the universe out of His own substance, a view which never found much acceptance in Christian circles.

'Ex Deo' is actually the closest to the truth. God created by speaking His word, so all creation comes from His word.

 

[doubtingmerle]

'Ex Deo' is actually the closest to the truth. God created by speaking His word, so all creation comes from His word.

Physical spoken words? How can there be sound waves if there is no atmosphere? And how can there be spoken words if there are no sound waves?

Or was it just that God somehow thought this universe into existence?

And was the speaking done with a physical mouth that was part of a physical body of a physical God? If so, where did the mouth, the body, the parts of God come from?

Or if your God is not material, if he is just vacuum as far as we can detect, then how is this different from saying the universe came from nothing? If you say it was not nothing, but there was a spirit within that nothing that did the creating, then why cannot that spirit be a constantly inflating nothingness combined with quantum effects that "speak" the universe into existance?

Needless to say, your post leaves me with a lot of questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Needless to say, your post leaves me with a lot of questions.

No ... your science does.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No ... your science does.

And your science does not leave you with these questions? Your science has sound waves in a vacuum, or spoken words without sound waves? Where did you get your science from?

 

[AV1611VET]

And your science does not leave you with these questions? Your science has sound waves in a vacuum, or spoken words without sound waves? Where did you get your science from?

I don't use science.

 

[Radrook]

Your Latin has failed you. It means from matter. Just like creation ex nihilo means creation from nothing. There is a third option, creation ex deo in which God is seen as creating the universe out of His own substance, a view which never found much acceptance in Christian circles.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, my Latin has failed me even though I speak and write Spanish and can understand and read four Latin-based languages. Why I chose to believe that the ""ëx"" means without is really beyond me. I do use it in the phrase ""Ex wife"" to mean former wife and never have encountered it as meaning without. So try as I might I just can't see why I made that statement. WEIRD!

Creatio ex nihilo: The belief God created everything out of nothing, and that nothing pre-existed before God.

Creatio ex Materia: The belief God created out of pre-existing materials, that existed before God.
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/3507-creatio-ex-nihilo-or-ex-materia/

I have never believed that God created things out of nothing.
Neither do I believe that there was anything existing before God.
The most feasible, to me, seems like the one you say was rejected.

 

[Chriliman]

Physical spoken words? How can there be sound waves if there is no atmosphere? And how can there be spoken words if there are no sound waves?

The spoken word is what brings understanding to the physical human mind.

Or was it just that God somehow thought this universe into existence?

Indeed, all of creation would have existed in the mind of God, then He spoke and made it a reality for us to actually experience. God is the fundamental force that drives the universe and everything in it to an end goal. There isn't anything before God and there isn't anything after God, He is the beginning and the end.

Revelation 22:13
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

And was the speaking done with a physical mouth that was part of a physical body of a physical God? If so, where did the mouth, the body, the parts of God come from?

God speaks through any physical means in order to help us understand His will and either obey or disobey. Through the ages God has spoken through prophets and even through a donkey at one point. In this age, God speaks to us through His son, Jesus Christ. No one comes to the Father, except through Christ.

John 14:6
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Or if your God is not material, if he is just vacuum as far as we can detect, then how is this different from saying the universe came from nothing?

Nothingness can't actually exist because if it did then it'd be something. The Spirit of God can exist and can be experienced by us as that which reveals truth.

If you say it was not nothing, but there was a spirit within that nothing that did the creating, then why cannot that spirit be a constantly inflating nothingness combined with quantum effects that "speak" the universe into existance?

Sorry, but this sounds like illogical nonsense to me. "inflating nothingness" can't logically exist because if it did then it'd be something - particularly something that is inflating. If you want to say the Spirit of God is inflating, then I might be inclined to agree with you on that, but it's not that the Spirit of God is inflating or changing in any way, but rather our understanding of God that is growing and expanding and this is thanks to God and understanding that He gives.

Needless to say, your post leaves me with a lot of questions.

Questions are good, but understanding is better, however if we understand the truth and still don't accept it, we will be held accountable for that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Believing in something doesn't help you understand it, if anything it stops you from understanding it because you want it to be true so you give it a pass, how can you understand something that does not exist? if you are told there's an all powerful being living beyond space and time how can you understand what it is, what it want's and how it got there? the simple answer is, you can't, all you will ever know is what you have been told by people who know as little as you do, which is nothing.

How can you conclude something you don't understand, doesn't exist?

You can't see the wind, yet we know it exists, and to that you will say: "We can feel the wind and see it's affects"...well, there ya' go then. And to add to that, just the fact we have a body at all to let us understand the wind, speaks volumes, but some just can't see the forest for the trees...or don't want too.

Believe what you like, as will I. I just think it's funny how you object to what I believe, makes no sense except that you know it's true but have to constantly try to convince others it is not, in order to justify your own beliefs.

Or maybe you can explain why what I believe is a concern to you?

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's just a repeat of your claim that you think it is more rational.
I'm asking you to explain it, not to repeat it.

And I would have to ask you t look up the term "explanation", you might be surprised.

Right, and I'm telling you that you are switching definitions for the term "creating", just to be able to slip your prefered god in there.

Oh, my, you people talking to *me* about switching definitions?...priceless.

I don't know what this means, but i'm pretty sure it's a strawman.

When you stop pretending, maybe we can touch on it.

What stories? I don't think I've ever told you about any stories...
You're the one here with the story.

It's not always about just what you said. These conversations sometimes get into generals.

Maybe you should care...

Yet, I still do not. What kind of comment is that anyway, maybe you should care about things you do not care about, but I highly doubt my saying so will change a thing.

In case you had not noticed, you are in the scientific section. If you want to preach, you're going to have to take it elsewhere. In here, religious faith based claims and preaching, will not do.

Explaining what to expect on a Christian forum is preaching? If you are that insecure, you should report me.

"common sense" isn't a pathway to truth when it concerns things that aren't part of our every-day experience.

Common sense didn't suggest time is relative to the observer.
Common sense didn't lead to quantum mechanics.
Common sense didn't lead to heliocentrism as opposed to geocentrism.

All of that required "out-of-the-box" thinking. All of those discoveries defied our common sense.

It takes common sense to understand how common sense can be useful, enough said. .

So the big bang has no cause?
The big bang is an uncaused event?

Exactly.

I don't know if the big bang has a cause, actually. I don't even know of "cause" is a sensible word to use for whatever unfolded at T = 0.

I'm not the one who pretends to know.

Maybe this will help. Cause and effect, you must have heard the term. Without cause, there is no affect. I'm not pretending, the affect is all around you...forrest/trees again.

Before we knew what lightning was? Ow yes, plenty of people used to claim that.

Well, they weren't too bright then were they....what is your point?

Ow, so now I am "too stupid" or "too slow" to understand your superior wisdom?
Is that what you are saying?

Also, I'll note that you didn't actually even attempt to explain yourself. You merely repeated your claim and added "it's obvious".

You are a terrible teacher.

I made the point, to some, some things just aren't going to be explainable, and I told you why. You can take it for what it was or you can, make something out of it that it is not....make little difference to me.

Really? How were they created?
Does your creator god "create" storms in which the conditions unfold to produce lightning? Are all storms created by this god of yours, or just the ones that produce lightning? And how do you know?

I've wondered about all that too, and I'll get back to you when I figure it all out. In the meantime, do share any knowledge you might have on the subject.

What point did I miss?

I don't recall, go find the post, bring it here, and I'll comment on it.

What is unrealistic, is what you are suggesting here... That being the idea that one needs to believe in a god before one can conclude a god.

Typical. Providing the answers before actually asking the questions.

Please reword that, and include the original comment, like I requested in my last comment. Your post is so long, but I'll be happy to answer, if you will help me out.

how can you understand something that does not exist?

How can you not understand something that so clearly does? How can you not see the overwhelming intelligence it took to make the universe and all in it happen? How can one equate it to "just happened"? The fact people do is stunning to me. No offense but that fact, IMO, denotes the most extreme denial that...well actually, the most extreme denial ever. I mean, how can anyone not want something to exist so badly, they will stoop to those levels to convince themselves it does not? Perplexing to say the least.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Criliman,

I see no answer to my questions about what is meant when folks say God spoke the universe into existance. Literally "speaking" means moving one's mouth so it makes sound waves in the atmosphere that convey a message. Since there was no atmosphere, how could there be "speaking". I think you mean a metaphorical speaking, that somehow the spirit conveyed a message to the universe to tell it to start existing. Is that what you are referring to? A metaphorical "speaking"?

God speaks through any physical means in order to help us understand His will and either obey or disobey. Through the ages God has spoken through prophets and even through a donkey at one point. In this age, God speaks to us through His son, Jesus Christ. No one comes to the Father, except through Christ.

I think you mean he speaks metaphorically through his son. So I am going to assume that is what you mean for creation: spirit somehow conveyed the message to the universe to start existing.

If you believe that spirit somehow conveyed the message to the universe to start existing, then that is not a huge difference from the person who believes that the laws of nature, the hidden creative forces of reality, the expanding quantum state, or nature's god, somehow conveyed the message to the universe to start existing. They sound like the same general idea. So if you agree God can convey the message to the universe to start existing, why cannot another person believe that god did it? Yes you have a preference that it was God, not god, but that is different from the argument some have made here that god (the unseen laws and forces of nature) could not possibly have done it, for that would be creating something from nothing. But at the same time they say God could do it. That is special pleading. If you say it is possible for God with a capital G to do it, but not god with a small g, then you are putting far too much power into a simple capital letter, a simple proper name.

Nothingness can't actually exist because if it did then it'd be something. The Spirit of God can exist and can be experienced by us as that which reveals truth.

Agreed. By "nothingness" I meant an expanse of space with no matter. Do you believe that out of an expanse of space without matter a spiritual force caused the matter of the universe to start existing?

Sorry, but this sounds like illogical nonsense to me. "inflating nothingness" can't logically exist because if it did then it'd be something - particularly something that is inflating.

Again, by "nothingness" I mean the absence of matter. There are some who believe that before the universe, there was a constant stretching out of space time that always existed. That means that space itself was stretching out, so if at one moment you could mark two points in the vacuum and measure them, and come back minutes later, you would find those exact points were now further apart. Within this space time there was a quantum ripple that caused that expansion to drive great energy into a single spot that became the seed of the Big Bang. It is actually a reasonable assumption, since we have found that at the very beginning, the universe was going through a vast inflation in which the dimensions of space were stretching out at phenomenal rates, and quantum affects were predominate.

Since it appears that you are big into the idea that something in space (but not made of matter) somehow directed matter to start existing, are you open to this?

 

[doubtingmerle]

How can you not see the overwhelming intelligence it took to make the universe and all in it happen?

How can you not see the overwhelming intelligence it took to make God and all his attributes happen?

And if you say God always existed, then why can it not be that the natural creative forces and laws of nature always existed and drove the creation of one or more universes?

 

[HitchSlap]

How can you not see the overwhelming intelligence it took to make God and all his attributes happen?

And if you say God always existed, then why can it not be that the natural creative forces and laws of nature always existed and drove the creation of one or more universes?

I'm always baffled when the religious make certain assumptions about the natural world, and it's always anathema to what the actual experts assert.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm always baffled when the religious make certain assumptions about the natural world, and it's always anathema to what the actual experts assert.

Baffling indeed.

 

[MasonP]

Or maybe you can explain why what I believe is a concern to you?

Because your beliefs have an effect on your actions, JW's allow their children to die because of what they believe, Muslims blow themselves up because of what they believe, Heavens Gate believers committed suicide because of what they believed, holding irrational beliefs make people do irrational things.
For example: Are these just nut cases or just believers?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm always baffled when the religious make certain assumptions about the natural world, and it's always anathema to what the actual experts assert.

In view of the idea that the goal of 'actual experts' is to sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible, I have a feeling you're in for some more bafflement.

 

[HitchSlap]

In view of the idea that the goal of 'actual experts' is to sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible, I have a feeling you're in for some more bafflement.

That's a naive view, and only held by those who see conspiracy behind everything. Martyr's complex, I think they call it?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a naive view, and only held by those who see conspiracy behind everything. Martyr's complex, I think they call it?

In your eyes, you don't think as science advances, the Bible retreats?