Creation Theory

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Swavey, Sep 6, 2013.

  1. Swavey Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    Hi, my name is David and I have a theory on the explanation of how the Universe was created. The Big Bang created the Universe but what created the Big Bang? I believe that a being with the power to do anything created a Universe. This leaves the question where is this creator. I believe this creator is either somewhere in some edge of the Universe or he can be living a life somewhere in the Universe without his power and when he dies he gets his power and he'll come show us the ways of the Universe. I believe the big bang created the universe but there's definitely gotta be someone who created the Big Bang itself. Now some people believe God is just everything the Universe itself and nature but if you created the universe wouldn't you make yourself a perfect being capable of doing many things. I believe that he would look like a human when he shows himself. What do you think?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    I believe along these lines, too. But, just in my own thinking, I think God is Light, and not in the form of a gender.
    That's how I imagine God to be.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Going along a similar path, do you believe in the theory of evolution? I do.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    One small modification to my above post. I believe that the universe has a Creator, but the sequence of events that "caused" the BB, has yet to be discovered, but that discovery ...points to a Creator. In other words, I think science will someday be able to explain the BB, and that explanation has a Creator. While we can't prove the existence of "a god," I don't believe that the BB was "uncaused." I think just for now, we have to accept that by way of present scientific definitions, the BB came from nothing. "Nothing" meaning that science can't define it right now, but someday ...it might be able to.

    Stephen Hawkins is noted for teaching that the universe only needs three things to create it...mass, space and energy. He teaches that there is no "need" for "a god." But, "what" or "who" created the mass, energy and space?
    It still makes ya wonder.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    We can at this time only speculate........and a creator, or some omnipotent being is just one of many speculatory explanations.





    It's Hawking.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and I don't really think he said exactly that. The BB, as Hawking knows was a creation/evolution of space and time [as we know them] in the first instant. Matter and energy sprung from phase transitions and false vacuums that followed in the first few seconds.
    He certainly said there was no need for a God, as he invokes space, time, matter energy, arising from the "nothingness" that preceded the BB.
    I recall him saying the Universe is the ultimate free lunch.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703


    The great man Albert Einstein, did not believe in a personal God. However, it is interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

    "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.
    Albert Einstein:

    He is was also reported as strongly denying he was an Atheist......He preferred to be called Agnostic.
     
  9. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    I knew how to spell it lol...my phone "corrected" it and I didn't notice.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm condensing what his argument is in essence, against there being a "need" to base the BB on a Creator. I'm on my phone and wish I knew how to copy and paste links using it. :/

    Anyway, I'm being brief, but I'll post an interesting commentary of his, tomorrow.
     
  10. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Well. There you go.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Well, it's really not one of the speculative explanations in the science community.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    While I appreciate you're young and interested in discussing science unfortunately wild speculation without any justification like that isn't really scientific. And before going any further I'll freely admit when I was 16 I too speculated about how the universe might have come about and even come up with some notion of how tachyons might have results in the universe creating itself. Looking back more than a dozen years later, with the hindsight of a PhD in theoretical physics, I see how naive I was.

    Nevertheless the fact you're thinking about such things is a good sign for having an good mind for science. I'd suggest you also think long and hard about your assumption (though you have many this is a particularly massive one) that the origin of the universe was an intelligent being. Theists sometimes try to use the Kallam cosmological argument to justify their belief in a god but the argument is flawed. Furthermore there are a variety of postulated ways in which the universe could have come about based on our current understanding. They lack experimental evidence but the point I'm making is that they are potential explanations which do not use a deity, implying that the assumption an intelligent agent must, by logical deduction, have been involved is flawed. The notion of the universe creating itself is logically sound, for example, given what we know of space-time thanks to general relativity and cosmology. It is not experimentally validated or refuted but it at least has grounding in models we have verified in many experimental domains. Personally I do not believe any god exists (note this is different from "I believe no gods exist") as no evidence exists to imply such beings do exist or have existed and until such time as evidence is presented the default position of any rational person is disbelief in a claim.
     
  13. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Doctor. That is you view and your view , and you cannot disprove those people that believe in God
     
  14. Swavey Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    See I just believe that if God created the Universe why would it want to be light wouldn't it want to do cool things. Look if you have the power to do whatever this would mean that your words would turn into matter so I'm pretty sure that of the first thing anyone would do is do something cool or pleasure themself. And yes I believe in evolution.
     
  15. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    What about the fundamental framework of the space-time continuum? Space-time is a "nothingness" which has characteristics such as physics constants c and G (among others). I cannot cut away a piece of space-time, yet it is something that exists. I'm not arguing for the Christian God, instead I am arguing that the laws of physics have missing puzzle pieces. There are many things that are thought to be nothingness, but is that really true? Are there mechanisms that set physics constants? What sets the physics laws themselves? Since physicists can't answer the question, it's almost a knee jerk reaction to say there is a God with immense power to create laws of physics and set physics constants. If not God, then what? A quantum fluctuation? That implies a pre-existing universe with laws of quantum mechanics.

    It's probably not possible for science to adequately answer these questions since there is no evidence to work with. You do physics for a living. In your opinion are the laws of physics just random things that fell together? If chance created the universe, then why are there constants at all?
     
  16. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    haha Well...it's easy to apply our own way of thinking to what we imagine God to be like, spiritually and physically. That's true.
    I think it's neat that you believe this, that your mind is open to the idea of a Creator.
    May I ask what brings you to believing in God?

    Oh, and there is a thread you might find interesting to participate in titled..."Is it possible to believe in God and be a Darwinist at the same time?"
    It's in the "religion" section. Check it out.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    I think that our picture of God will have to evolve given the evidence. The Christian hellfire God that hates homosexuals will probably not survive the 21st century. However, the very concept of God is probably an evolutionary short cut for the brain, a way to say, "I am in awe of something powerful and should pay a lot of attention to it". It is unfortunate that the "God of the gaps" phenomena is regarded disparagingly by the scientific community. It really should be recognized as a brilliant survival strategy of the human brain. To extrapolate on my point, it's probably a good survival strategy to imagine that the laws of physics themselves (and the physics constants) were created by something that I will use a placeholder for called God. It is convenient to me and allows me to imagine what might be out there beyond space-time.
     
  18. Swavey Registered Member

    Messages:
    18

    I started believing this when I thought there has to be something that created the Big Bang so I just thought why can't one of us be the one that created the Big Bang we're pretty smart and then I thought why would God want to live as the whole Universe wouldn't that just be boring being everything at the same time not even talking just moving yourself then I thought wouldn't a human being be the perfect candidate for a being to be I mean we just are the perfect species we can do a ton of stuff and plus you've seen all the stuff we dream of doing in cartoons and animes I'm pretty sure God would be doing some stuff like that like going Super Saiyan and making enemies to fight and eating the best food.
     
  19. Swavey Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    What I think is out there beyond space and time is truly unlimited power, the power to do anything like make the Universe a million times bigger by saying it. I believe what ever created the Big Bang holds this power.
     
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    Firstly I could have phrased it as "a decade of university later" or "having got myself a university physics and maths education" or many alternative ways. The point isn't "I'm an authority, what I say is right" but rather there is a great deal to learn about what we currently understand (or think we understand) about the universe and, as I complemented him on, the fact he's already thinking about such things at that age is a very good thing, it just needs to be channelled somewhat. Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge" but personally I'd clarify that to "Knowledge without imagination is blind and imagination without knowledge is directionless".

    Which leads me on to my second point, namely your comment about PhDs working themselves into a corner. I completely and utterly agree. I work in the private research sector and I do the interviews for the team I'm on/in. All applications must have a PhD and we find that only about 1 in 20 have any understanding of mathematics and rigorous methodologies, the other 19 just repeat results they have remembered, failing to see how to develop new approaches to new problems or modifying their 'tools' to aid them. I've interviewed dozens of people in the last 18 months and only 4 have gotten past the first round (of 3 rounds!). My boss has to keep reminding me to "perk up" when doing interviews because it can become so teeth grindingly, door frame chewingly awful to see someone with a degree, masters, PhD, 2 post docs and 5 years of academic lecturing crash and burn.

    Of course I'm not perfect but I have the job I do not because I could bang out papers left, right and centre during my PhD but rather I can quickly develop a broad grasp of a wide range of topics and make use of them in novel ways. I did a 3.5 year PhD and I have been in my current job for 3 years. I've learnt several times as much maths in my job than I did in my PhD. Not always to the same depth but real world problems often require innovation, not specialisation.

    God (or the creator or first cause) is an exception to the rules set up by the argument. If we allow the notion of there being an 'uncaused causer' or something as eternal, so as to not need a cause, then why should we decide such a thing is a deity? Why not let the universe be eternal (or the larger universe our particular space-time could be contained within, given we know our region of space-time is of finite age ala the big bang)? Furthermore there are self consistent notions of self creation, in that the universe can be its own cause. There's a paper on ArXiv which gives such an example, I can find it if you wish.

    The general framework of the argument comes down to "Everything must fall into this category, which now needs an explanation..... now I define something outside of that category which explains said category and which doesn't need an explanation". Creating a set of rules and then declaring a singular exception to it, which just happens to be the thing you're trying to justify, is a logical fallacy called 'special pleading'.

    If you seriously think the Kallam cosmological argument holds water then I'd suggest you take a leaf out of your criticisms of PhDs and broaden your horizons a bit.

    I guess you failed to understand my point. I was addressing the theistic argument that it is a logical necessity that an intelligent agent created the universe. Given there are alternative explanations which are not precluded by logic it is therefore a false conclusion. In a more specific way if A explains X but then so does B explain X it is false to say "X therefore A". If two or more possible explanations exist and are viable then neither one is necessarily true. At least not given the knowledge to hand. Could a deity have created the universe? Sure. Could the universe have been self creating? Yes. Therefore a deity is not necessarily required to explain existence. It might well be the true reason but this is now the difference between "Logically viable" and "Phenomenologically sound".

    Seriously? You believe in Genesis? Please don't say literally! There's 2 accounts of creation in Genesis, contradicting one another and both contradicting science. Genesis talks about the order of creation for Earth, Sun, light, plants, animals etc, pretty much ALL contradictory to science. This is a standard problem with the Bible. The only way you can believe in Genesis and be consistent with reality is to view it as allegory, such as the apple from the tree in Eden being a metaphor for knowledge and perhaps technology.

    You want to have personal faith, knock yourself out. Want to present any of the major religions, including Christianity, as bang on accurate, you're having a laugh I hope. And I stand by what I said, given the complete lack of any objective evidence for the existence of a deity or deities the only rational position is disbelief, ie "I do not accept the claims of theists". And given I do not put much stock in your logic processing abilities I'll again clarify that this is not the same as saying "Theists are wrong". If someone flips a coin and without looking at it declares "It is heads!" I would reply "I do not believe you", which is different from saying "No, it is tails", as I'd say "I do not believe you" if their friend declared "It is tails!". Until such time as evidence proportional to the claim is presented the only rational position is disbelief. In that regard I do not believe in the Christian (or any other) god, though I cannot prove your faith wrong. On the other hand Genesis is wrong, demonstrably, repeatedly and extremely wrong. And if you do not see that I think your ability to evaluate the scientific and research capabilities of PhDs is called into extreme question since you would have to be unfamiliar with the basic scientific method and reality.
     
  21. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    What an insightful post!

    Personally, I don't expect science to prove the existence of God, nor should it. Faith in a "higher power" is just that, faith. I just don't understand (honestly) why science often dismisses the idea of a Creator? I've always believed in God, so it is a foreign idea to me, to accept that the universe started from "nothing."
    I accept scientific explanations and theories but not by themselves.
     
  22. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    I think faith in God is healthy, healing for the mind, and empowering. I recommend it. Believing in God not only enriches people's lives, but it also creates a sense of identity, purpose and sense of certainty about the world. I will say that there are religious teachings that are going to have to be left behind. It is wrong to use the power of God unjustly. It is much better to use it to ease suffering, heal, and inspire.

    Science cannot banish God because science is predicated upon laws; the problem for science is that nobody knows where these laws came from or how they are being enforced. Same thing goes with space-time geometry and the physics constants. Out of a sense of awe of the Creator, I believe "God of the gaps" should be changed to "God of mysteries".
     
  23. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Who are you, and where did you come from?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Seriously, I've read about and listened to a variety of attitudes when it comes to the question of can science and faith...coexist but your view is refreshingly open and real. (and much needed)

    I don't think that science has any "problem" however, with the current explanations for how the universe came into existence.
    It is content to accept that "something" came from "nothing." From a scientific perspective, nothing doesn't really mean...nothing.
    Rather, currently there is no explanation or definition as to what "caused" the BB.

    Science is correct and to believe in a Creator doesn't challenge that theory. I don't need to abandon one to believe in the other.
    Science and faith can successfully coexist therefore, IMHO.
     

Share This Page