how our universe came to be

[elliebean]

Please understand, we're not attacking you; we're trying to help you understand, each in our own various styles, why we already know your argument doesn't hold... I am I's critique of your English usage notwithstanding.

Not everything that exists has a cause. Only things that have a beginning have a cause. God dosent have a beginning.

If you can simply assert that god exists and doesn't have a beginning or a cause, then why isn't it equally, if not more valid to say that the universe, or whatever natural phenomena whence it arose, has simply always existed without any cause?

We know the universe had a beginning and that it didnt create itself.  So what other options are there? Something eternal had to bring the universe into existence. It's the only plausible explanation.

Is it so implausible that what we know as the universe is the product of hitherto unknown natural forces that have always been in effect in some form or another in perpetuity? Better yet, is that any less plausible that an intelligent being with the power to enact those same natural forces or some other process to bring the universe about, had always existed, without cause, unchanged, in perpetuity, until becoming sufficiently bored with his own balance of perfection to suddenly and inexplicably create chaos and imperfection for his own amusement?

[Whitney]

Just because science points to the big bang as the start of our universe doesn't mean that the universe can't have a natural cause.  For instance, string theory somehow points to these things they call "branes" colliding to form our 'universe' that is really part of a multiverse and there is also the bubble universe theory.

Note that the cause could also be something that might be better described as supernatural yet not something that could be described as "god" without butchering the intended meaning of the word god.  However, I don't jump to the supernatural conclusion the same reason I don't jump to the god conclusion....or any real conclusion at all.....we have no clue how the universe came to be past what tiny glimpse at the moments after the big bang research has provided us and it's not intellectually honest to make stuff up just so we can claim to have an answer.

[happynewyear]

You cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence.

"Yourself" is an Illusion.

[Yrreg]

I have also my own opinion on how the universe got started to come to be.

I am however an independent theist, and for me God is first and foremost in relation to human knowledge the maker of everything that is not God.


Let us start, theists and atheists, everyone here who loves to exchange views and not be into useless and time-wasting nitpicking, just so that you can avoid facing the issue and at the same time claim to be saying something relevant.

Let us start with existence, the phenomenon of existence, you can accept that whether you be theist or atheist.

If you cannot accept that, that there is existence, then where do you come in here, when consequently if you don't accept existence as a self-evident fact to a living human, then you don't belong here, you don't exist for yourself, so don't talk here any further.


Okay, everyone here who accepts existence because you know the fact of existence, starting with yourself as an example or representative of existence, you know that existence has always been around even before the arrival of time and space which are just additional but ulterior components of existence.

You still with me so far? Good.


Now, tell me what universe are you talking about, the Big Bang universe, isn't it? that one which is what scientists who ascribe exclusively to matter as the be all and end all of all existence, the material universe that is.

That Big Bang, namely, that is the start of the material universe, that universe which materialistic scientists as I said insist is all that there is to all existence.


I will ask you all a question, can you intellectualize a before that is not of time and of space, but of the order of existence where (not the where of space though) a being exists not of enclosure and permeation in time and in space of the material universe, but of enclosure in itself.

That is what I call a being from itself, which is the source or origin or cause of everything else that is not from itself.

That being that is the only kind and the only one of its kind, that is the causal agent of the universe which universe then is a being not from itself but from another being, from the being that is from itself, which is a one from a kind of existence that has only one representative.

That being that is the only one of the only kind, a being from itself, not from another being, that is God the maker of everything, and everything is therefore from God.

How did God make everything that is the material universe?

By an act of His will, that is how.

And that is the material universe of the materialistic scientists which they want to concern themselves with.


Now, ask yourselves the question, just because materialistic scientists can experience or prefer to experience only the material universe, that is no ground at all for them to not intellectualize that there are many other kinds of beings which are not from themselves but from God, which beings are not material beings of the kinds only known to themselves materialistic scientists, because they put blinders to cover their brain.



The important distinction I want to introduce here is the being from itself, God, and beings from another who is being from itself, God.

God the being from Himself creates the universe which is composed of all beings from another, from God Who is the only being from itself, and the only representative from the kind of being that is from itself.


Next, I will talk about the totality of existence as another way to understand the beginning or the origin of the universe, first the material universe of course for materialistic scientists, but also the broader universe including all kinds of beings not known to materialistic scientists -- but if they do possess any intellectualizing capacity that is not suppressed by themselves, they will admit there are such beings that are not material beings and not bound by time and space.




Yrreg

[pinkocommie]

[i_am_i]

I have also my own opinion on how the universe got started to come to be.

Gee golly gosh, that's just swell, Gerry. Clever lad you are!

[Ellainix]

So a self-existing reality is less logical than a self-existing entity... how?

According to key scientific data the universe has a beginning.  Likewise, we know that the universe isnt self-created. Nothing that begins to exist does so without a cause. So we can conclude that an eternal creator exists.

There is your flaw right there. Our specific phase in the progression of universal motion has a beginning. The "Big Bang" could have simply been proceeded by the opposite of a Big Bang.

[Recusant]

There are 4 possible explainiations of how our universe came into existense.

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

Reality cannot be an illusion because, illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument.

Reality is/was not self-created because of the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself.

Evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900's, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein's theory of relativity suggest that the universe is not eternal.

So isn't option 4 the most plausible?

Hello, and welcome to HAF, dietpepsi.

1) "Reality is an illusion."
Though there are those who believe this to be true, I am not one of them, and I'm willing to stipulate that reality is not an illusion.

2) "Reality is/was self-created." ~~~> "Reality is/was not self-created because of the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself."  
There actually is at least one hypothesis regarding this proposition.  It does not posit something existing prior to itself.  If you care to explore it, I would recommend a talk given by Lawrence Krause called A Universe From Nothing.  It's a little over an hour long, but fairly entertaining, and very informative.

3) "Reality is self-existent (eternal)." ~~~> "Evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900's, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein's theory of relativity suggest that the universe is not eternal."
Here you seem to equate reality with our universe.  Not necessarily the same thing.  It's true that all reality as experienced by us is contained in our universe, but it does not necessarily follow from that that our universe encompasses all reality.  See Mulitverse Theory.

4) "Reality was created by something that is self-existent." ~~~> "So isn't option 4 the most plausible?"
Option 4 is plausible, though I don't know that it's "most plausible."  Even so, it does not necessarily mean that a deity is that "something that is self-existent."  That's a possible hypothesis, but we have no evidence that it's the right one.

According to key scientific data the universe has a beginning.  Likewise, we know that the universe isnt self-created. Nothing that begins to exist does so without a cause. So we can conclude that an eternal creator exists.

This sounds like a shorthand version of the Kalam argument.  I could get into the issues with Kalam, but it's easier for me to simply refer you to this page, which does a pretty thorough job of tearing it apart.  Just how do we know that the universe isn't self-created?  I was unaware that this had been proved by cosmologists. I'll just say that your conclusion does not follow inevitably from your premise.

********************************************************************************************************************************

Why should I waste my time on yet another illiterate Christian?

You're entitled to take that approach, but minor misspellings and grammatical issues do not equal illiteracy.  As one member of this forum (a quite intelligent and well-read one, I might add) has pointed out:

(my spelling, grammer, and punctuation suck, I know, but regardless of how much I read they haven't improved much since grade school. It's actually a bit of a family joke. That being said they are poor indicaters of my education or intelligence.)

[Squid]

So a self-existing reality is less logical than a self-existing entity... how?

According to key scientific data the universe has a beginning.

If you'd like to take Stephen Hawking as an example, I believe when referring to the beginning of the universe the terminology utilized is "the beginning of the universe as we know it...".  This would imply that this beginning is not necessarily THE origination.

[Yrreg]

Well, you all are quite intelligent but you are self-blindered, that is the trouble with atheists.


No wonder you want to talk about how our universe came to be without ever wanting to see the bigger picture of the universe you have in your focus ( a near-sighted focus by the way ) which is just a part of the existence of things.


Now, if you pass the IQ test with at least an average score then you must be possessed of the habit of seeing things in the biggest possible picture with your brain cells.

However, having taken into your brain cells the atheists' worldview, you have isolated yourselves into a very small segment of existence, and hence you choose to leave out the totality of existence.

Think about that, you have isolated yourselves in a very minutest enclave of existence, namely, the totality of existence, and talk as though you are into everything by dwelling on the how our universe came to be.

What's that, our universe, your universe, you as atheists?

Hahaha! Just like the termites all the time in the darkness talking about how their universe came about.


Now that is really some psychological study.





Pachomius

[elliebean]

Nothing to contribute to the conversation.

[Yrreg]

According to atheists here there are two objections against God the maker of everything.

First, if God made everything who made God?

And second, no need for God to make everything because everything has always been existing.


Let us for the sake of being constructive and productive with atheists here grant but not concede that everything has always been present.

Now, everything then can be called God maker of everything, would that be all right with you atheists?

Everything has always been existing, so that is God because it explains everything including the materialistic universe of the atheist scientists.

Still with me?

Or you don't want to use the name God for everything that has always been existing?


Think about it then, why if everything has always been existing then it is God as I define God maker of everything, in that everything in effect makes itself for being always been existing.

You don't like that because the name God is still there which has been already appropriated by theists as their name for their God.

So you are really into the fear of the name of God as known by theists, even though as I am telling you for the sake of constructive and productive exchange of ideas and opinions I am granting you though not conceding that everything has always been existing.

Everything has always been existing, that as God should take care of the objection if God made everything who made God, namely, no one made God for as God is everything always existing there is no need for anyone to make God.

And that should also make you atheists happy, because then the universe has always been existing whatever number of times and number of universes the universe has been replicating itself in them and continuously replicating.

Replicating, that word you atheists love, of course.

On my part I have not grudge against the use of that word, because it is from the word replica which means a copy, so it is a good useful word and of course the concept behind it is just fine for our purpose.


Okay, now, no more objections to God maker of everything, meaning as everything always existing it is certainly deserving of the name God understood as maker of everything.



Pachomius

[elliebean]

Maker = one who makes

"Make" implies action.

Action is a temporal concept, requiring a beginning.

When did your god start making everything?

Keep in mind that "everything" includes time, space, thought, and being.


Try not to hurt your brain.

[curiosityandthecat]

Uh, we've already been over how the universe came to be...

[Yrreg]

Maker = one who makes

"Make" implies action.

Action is a temporal concept, requiring a beginning.

When did your god start making everything?

Keep in mind that "everything" includes time, space, thought, and being.


Try not to hurt your brain.

Everything has always been existing, you agree to that.

And I am saying that for the sake of constructive and productive exchange of ideas and views I am granting though not conceding that everything has always been existing.

Now, can you agree with me that if everything has always been existing there is no need to ask who made everything?

You do of course, because it is simple logic on condition that you know logic.

What you should ask however and it is licit meaning logically allowed is: is that everything one thing or a collection of things?


In actual fact from our human experience, everything is a collection of things, like for example, sub-atomic particles which are the components of things examined by way of physics and chemistry and mechanics, and are the building blocks for composite things contrived by engineers, for example, cars, airplanes, ships, bridges, space shuttles, artificial satellites.

In this line of discourse we can see -- and I hope you do see -- that in that collection of everything there are things which are put together by other things, for example, as I said engineers (which things are humans) put together more simple things to produce more sophisticated things like a motor-bike all the way to a space shuttle and an artificial satellite.


Here I will introduce then this idea to you, that in that collection of everything there are things which are not subject to time but which produce things subject to time and also I will add space.


So, to your comment:

Maker = one who makes

"Make" implies action.

Action is a temporal concept, requiring a beginning.

When did your god start making everything?

Keep in mind that "everything" includes time, space, thought, and being.


Try not to hurt your brain.

No, no pain at all or hurting in my brain and it should also be for your brain, even though should you use it with the most versatility and potentials for productivity.


Okay, use your brain now the utmost of versatility or even just a small bit.

You say [ attend to the line in bold ]:

Maker = one who makes

"Make" implies action.

Action is a temporal concept, requiring a beginning.

When did your god start making everything?

Keep in mind that "everything" includes time, space, thought, and being.


Try not to hurt your brain.[/list]


The action you as a human have experience of requires a beginning in time, but not all kinds of actions from all kinds of things which can act to produce something have to act always in time.

Is it thinkable to your brain that there are beings which can act to produce things which things then exist from their essential nature in the dimensions of time and space once they come into existence?


I leave you to do your thinking, and keep in mind or in your brain that there are innumerable things not experienced by man but can be thought up by versatile brains, which things are not illogical, not impossible, unless you already blindered your brain to not go into their directions.


Think Big Bang theory which is the start of time and space, but still the thing introduced at the point of Big Bang, the physical universe that is, is just one of the things making up the collection of everything.


Think hard now, and I assure you that hard thinking is not necessarily painful or hurtful thinking, but blindered thinking does lead to painful or hurtful use of your brain.



Yrreg