Did God create the universe?

[Concordicus]

This is my first post on this forum. One of the problems in this discussion has been that none of the commentators know how to deal with a question for which we lack any real evidence. This situation is that something happened in the past, no one was there to witness it, no detailed records exist and we cannot prove any suggested solution. We can adopt the position which seems to make the most sense and defend our choice..

We should hope that what we do know can shed some light on the issue. So, instead of deductive or inductive reasoning, we must apply what is called abductive reasoning. We start by trying to determine what actions could possibly bring about the effect we have observed. And then we search our knowledge bases to see if we can find things which fit those possibilities. .

This is what Darwin did in formulating his ideas concerning bio-diversity. He knew how animal breeding could change animal characteristics and he also knew that different environments where an animal dwelt could change its characteristics. (For example, he knew that same breed of sheep in colder climates had more wool.) It was from knowing that natural circumstances could change characteristics that he logically came to his conclusions on adaptation, natural selections and survival of the fittest.

In this discussion, one might consider what is it that believers claim God has done. Two major things believers claim God has done is create the Universe and create life. If there are any indications that the God they describe could or could not do either of those things, while not dispositive, it would tend to lead us nearer to confirming belief or disbelief.

So let's look at what can cause a Universe to exist. We can highly suspect that some causation is involved, because we know that the material world is built on physical laws of cause and effect, among a number of physical laws. The two most prominent hypotheses at this point in time, are the Biblical creation story and the so called "Big Bang" theory. Big Bang, originally proposed by the scientific community, has since come under criticism because of the ultimate realization that it says essentially the same thing that the Bible account says -- "Nothing, then everything.”

So what are some attributes we would ascribe to something that might cause a Universe? First, the causation must be transcendent, that is, it must exist outside the Universe. Second, it must have requisite knowledge of how to cause a universe. Thirdly, it must have the requisite ability to cause a Universe. If something has all those qualities, it could qualify as a potential Universe creator. Possibly, one can think of more requisites, but these must most certainly be the basic three requisits.

In order for the Universe to come into existence by whatever causation, that causation must exist outside of the Universe. It could have not brought about the Universe from within the Universe because in that case, the Universe would already have been in existence. This is the why the cause must be transcendent.

Big Bang arrives at the moment of the appearance of the Universe by reversing the known expansion that the Universe has experienced. In reversing the expansion, space must fold in upon itself, thereby compressing the density of matter and the intensity of energy. At the end of the reversal process, space is completely folded into no space at all. giving rise to the question of how much matter and energy can fit into no space. Big Bang does not, however, go back into pre-time to provide a transcendent causation, nor does it offer anything that has the knowledge or ability to cause a Universe. It merely reverse engineers what has happened after the moment everything came into existence, but cannot can not look back beyond tthat.

I am not aware of any modern story or one from antiquity that depicts a transcendent, knowledgable, able being of any kind other than what is found in the Bible. I have not, of course, read everything or about every creation story. Almost all other creation stories begin with the Universe already in existence, thus their creator fails the test of transcendence although they may qualify as providing an intelligent and able creators. Materialist science does not allow that anything exists outside of the material Universe. Thus, science cannot, by its own admission, provide a transcendent source for the existence of matter. Nor does it provide a creative element with either the knowledge or ability to bring a Universe into existence.

Now, this does actually not PROVE anything. It merely infers an answer which many people find satisfactory.

If one considers the above criteria of transcendence, knowledge and ability, the only known entity to allegedly exhibit those qualities is the entity that is the God described in the Bible.

 

[Pinball1970]

it says essentially the same thing that the Bible account says -- "Nothing, then everything.”

No, many cosmologists have either an eternal universe or cyclic universe as their model, so no "nothing then everything."

Big Bang, originally proposed by the scientific community, has since come under criticism

Can you expand and provide a scientific citation regarding that?

One of the problems in this discussion has been that none of the commentators know how to deal with a question for which we lack any real evidence

No this is about the relationship between Theism and Agnosticism which is belief verses knowledge claims.

 

[Pinball1970]

I have not, of course, read everything or about every creation story.

They are all completely incompatible with one another, Yhwh, the Bible and it's stories are derived from earlier ancient mesopotamian myths.

 

[James R]

Welcome to sciforums, Concordicus!

This is my first post on this forum. One of the problems in this discussion has been that none of the commentators know how to deal with a question for which we lack any real evidence.

The big bang theory, which you go on to criticise, is supported by numerous lines of evidence.

However, it is important to note that the big bang theory does not actually describe anything that happened before about 10^-43 seconds after the universe came into being.

In other words, it is a mistake to think that the big bang theory describes the creation of the universe. It describes how the early universe evolved after it came into existence. It is a testable, falsifiable scientific theory.

In contrast, the hypothesis that "God did it" is untestable and seemingly is impossible to falsify, in principle. It is also problematic in that it assumes from the start something which is not in evidence: that a conscious, purposeful, intelligent, supernatural being exists. That's a lot of assumptions to make, starting from nothing.

This situation is that something happened in the past, no one was there to witness it, no detailed records exist and we cannot prove any suggested solution. We can adopt the position which seems to make the most sense and defend our choice.

It is not quite true that "no detailed records exist" about what happened in the early universe. Since the speed of light is finite, the further away in space we look the further back in time are the events we see. We are now able to observe galaxies formed in the very early eras of the universe. We also see evidence that a big bang occurred, as predicted by the theory.

It is also important to realise that the big bang theory isn't just a vague set of ideas. It is a quantitative scientific theory. That is, it makes predictions that "if you measure such and such a quantity, the numerical value you find should be such and such". This is how the theory is tested - by making quantitative measurements and comparing observational evidence to the theoretical predictions.

It is not just a case of "choose the idea that most appeals to you on aesthetic (or religious) grounds".

We should hope that what we do know can shed some light on the issue. So, instead of deductive or inductive reasoning, we must apply what is called abductive reasoning. We start by trying to determine what actions could possibly bring about the effect we have observed. And then we search our knowledge bases to see if we can find things which fit those possibilities.

The problem is that we only have one universe in evidence. We don't have lots of examples of universes popping into existence which we can examine. Therefore, it's hard to say, in advance, what actions could possibly lead to a universe popping into existence.

As soon as you start invoking God as an explanation, you've effectively given up trying to understand the mystery. Gods are all powerful, so they can be used as pseudo-explanations for literally anything. Saying "God did it" doesn't lead to a deeper understanding of any physical phenomenon. It's just guesswork, at best.

In this discussion, one might consider what is it that believers claim God has done. Two major things believers claim God has done is create the Universe and create life. If there are any indications that the God they describe could or could not do either of those things, while not dispositive, it would tend to lead us nearer to confirming belief or disbelief.

Is there anything a God cannot do? I doubt there are many believers out there who would be willing to limit the power of their all-powerful gods

On the other hand, how are we to go about trying to determine what a god could do?

The only thing the Believer can do is to assume that his god can do whatever he needs it to do.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

So let's look at what can cause a Universe to exist. We can highly suspect that some causation is involved, because we know that the material world is built on physical laws of cause and effect, among a number of physical laws. The two most prominent hypotheses at this point in time, are the Biblical creation story and the so called "Big Bang" theory.

The biblical creation story is highly implausible, though, don't you think? Surely you don't buy all that "talking snake in the Garden of Eden" nonsense? It's like a fairy tale. It also makes no sense at all in terms of what we know about the physical world from science.

Also, why do you regard the biblical creation story as especially "prominent"? Are you a Christian? Is it just that this one is the religious story you're most familiar with? What makes Hindu creation stories less "prominent"? What about Australian Aboriginal stories of the Dreamtime? Are you just basing "prominence" on the sheer numbers of follows of different religious traditions, or something else?

The big bang theory is "prominent" because it is scientific hypothesis that has stood up best to the rigours of scientific investigation and testing, so far. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the right theory; it just means it's the most accurate description we've come up with so far, based on what we observe of the physical world.

Big Bang, originally proposed by the scientific community, has since come under criticism because of the ultimate realization that it says essentially the same thing that the Bible account says -- "Nothing, then everything.”

See above. The big bang theory doesn't talk about how the universe got started. It can't, because we know that our best physical theories can't be extrapolated back in time far enough, given the extreme conditions in the early universe.

So what are some attributes we would ascribe to something that might cause a Universe? First, the causation must be transcendent, that is, it must exist outside the Universe.

... if there was a cause.

What actually rules out the possibility that the universe just spontaneously appeared from nothing? If your only objection to that idea is that it doesn't "feel" right to you - that it is "counter-intuitive" - all I can say is: welcome to modern science! There are lots of things we know to be true that are also staggeringly counter-intuitive or surprising. Think relativity, quantum physics, for example.

Second, it must have requisite knowledge of how to cause a universe.

That's a huge leap of illogic, there.

Does a drop of water need to have "requisite knowledge" about how to form a symmetrical snowflake?

You're trying to sneak in a thinking being. But that's circular - it's what you're trying to prove! You can't start by just assuming that it exists from the start.

Thirdly, it must have the requisite ability to cause a Universe.

You're assuming that causing a universe is difficult. What if it's not?

In order for the Universe to come into existence by whatever causation, that causation must exist outside of the Universe.

Okay. So what's wrong with a multiverse in which extra-dimensional branes collide, causing universes to pop into existence at the interfaces of the branes?

Big Bang arrives at the moment of the appearance of the Universe by reversing the known expansion that the Universe has experienced. In reversing the expansion, space must fold in upon itself, thereby compressing the density of matter and the intensity of energy. At the end of the reversal process, space is completely folded into no space at all. giving rise to the question of how much matter and energy can fit into no space.

This is why the big theory can't extrapolate right back to time zero.

You're assuming there was a condition of "no space", but is it safe to assume that?

What about a cyclic universe, where all the matter and energy goes through cycles of compression and expansion? What's wrong with that idea? The universe might crunch down to a very small size and then rebound, so to speak, without ever reaching size zero.

Big Bang does not, however, go back into pre-time to provide a transcendent causation, nor does it offer anything that has the knowledge or ability to cause a Universe.

Right.

By just assuming a bunch of properties of your "transcendent cause" for what come down to your personal religious preferences and baises seems like pretty shoddy thinking to me. Don't you agree?

I am not aware of any modern story or one from antiquity that depicts a transcendent, knowledgable, able being of any kind other than what is found in the Bible.

Take some time to actually read about what religions other than your own have to say about how the universe came into being. There are lots of creation myths out there. The biblical one is quite obviously just one more in a long line, not so very different to lots of others, as far as the basics go. It's only once you start to get into the nitty gritty of the biblical creation story that it really all starts to fall apart quite spectacularly. Turns out, much of it is self-contradictory or just absurd given what we know now.

Materialist science does not allow that anything exists outside of the material Universe.

All real science is "materialist", so that adjective is not necessary.

But what you said is not quite right. Science can contemplate many universes, each with their own matter and energy, existing in a larger multiverse. In that picture, our universe could just be an average, unremarkable example drawn from uncountable millions of others.

Thus, science cannot, by its own admission, provide a transcendent source for the existence of matter.

Not yet. But it's okay not to know, for now.

"God did it" gets us exactly nowhere, for reasons I have explained. It's a dead-end excuse for failing to have a proper explanation. At least Science is honest about what it doesn't know.

Now, this does actually not PROVE anything. It merely infers an answer which many people find satisfactory.

Absolutely. People love ideas that help to prop up their existing biases.

If one considers the above criteria of transcendence, knowledge and ability, the only known entity to allegedly exhibit those qualities is the entity that is the God described in the Bible.

See above for all the problems with this extravagant claim. There are several that I have identified.

 

[exchemist]

This is my first post on this forum. One of the problems in this discussion has been that none of the commentators know how to deal with a question for which we lack any real evidence. This situation is that something happened in the past, no one was there to witness it, no detailed records exist and we cannot prove any suggested solution. We can adopt the position which seems to make the most sense and defend our choice..

We should hope that what we do know can shed some light on the issue. So, instead of deductive or inductive reasoning, we must apply what is called abductive reasoning. We start by trying to determine what actions could possibly bring about the effect we have observed. And then we search our knowledge bases to see if we can find things which fit those possibilities. .

This is what Darwin did in formulating his ideas concerning bio-diversity. He knew how animal breeding could change animal characteristics and he also knew that different environments where an animal dwelt could change its characteristics. (For example, he knew that same breed of sheep in colder climates had more wool.) It was from knowing that natural circumstances could change characteristics that he logically came to his conclusions on adaptation, natural selections and survival of the fittest.

In this discussion, one might consider what is it that believers claim God has done. Two major things believers claim God has done is create the Universe and create life. If there are any indications that the God they describe could or could not do either of those things, while not dispositive, it would tend to lead us nearer to confirming belief or disbelief.

So let's look at what can cause a Universe to exist. We can highly suspect that some causation is involved, because we know that the material world is built on physical laws of cause and effect, among a number of physical laws. The two most prominent hypotheses at this point in time, are the Biblical creation story and the so called "Big Bang" theory. Big Bang, originally proposed by the scientific community, has since come under criticism because of the ultimate realization that it says essentially the same thing that the Bible account says -- "Nothing, then everything.”

So what are some attributes we would ascribe to something that might cause a Universe? First, the causation must be transcendent, that is, it must exist outside the Universe. Second, it must have requisite knowledge of how to cause a universe. Thirdly, it must have the requisite ability to cause a Universe. If something has all those qualities, it could qualify as a potential Universe creator. Possibly, one can think of more requisites, but these must most certainly be the basic three requisits.

In order for the Universe to come into existence by whatever causation, that causation must exist outside of the Universe. It could have not brought about the Universe from within the Universe because in that case, the Universe would already have been in existence. This is the why the cause must be transcendent.

Big Bang arrives at the moment of the appearance of the Universe by reversing the known expansion that the Universe has experienced. In reversing the expansion, space must fold in upon itself, thereby compressing the density of matter and the intensity of energy. At the end of the reversal process, space is completely folded into no space at all. giving rise to the question of how much matter and energy can fit into no space. Big Bang does not, however, go back into pre-time to provide a transcendent causation, nor does it offer anything that has the knowledge or ability to cause a Universe. It merely reverse engineers what has happened after the moment everything came into existence, but cannot can not look back beyond tthat.

I am not aware of any modern story or one from antiquity that depicts a transcendent, knowledgable, able being of any kind other than what is found in the Bible. I have not, of course, read everything or about every creation story. Almost all other creation stories begin with the Universe already in existence, thus their creator fails the test of transcendence although they may qualify as providing an intelligent and able creators. Materialist science does not allow that anything exists outside of the material Universe. Thus, science cannot, by its own admission, provide a transcendent source for the existence of matter. Nor does it provide a creative element with either the knowledge or ability to bring a Universe into existence.

Now, this does actually not PROVE anything. It merely infers an answer which many people find satisfactory.

If one considers the above criteria of transcendence, knowledge and ability, the only known entity to allegedly exhibit those qualities is the entity that is the God described in the Bible.

You have misunderstood the Big Bang theory. It is a theory of what seems, according to the available evidence, to have happened in the first moments after the universe began. Science deals with making sense of observations of the physical world and predicting what else we should be able to observe about it. There is no theory of the very beginning, as our laws of physics break down in that regime. Some cosmologists have speculated about it but speculation is all it can be.

What you have written seems to be a piece of metaphysics: a rather long-winded variant of the hackneyed old First Cause argument. This actually has its problems, since the mathematics of current cosmology suggest that time itself only started at the first instant, at t=0, if you like. If this is right (though it may not be) it is unclear what can be meant by a "cause", as it is meaningless to speak of any operation occurring "before" t=0.

We find a lot of creationists on these forums are in the habit of demanding answers to questions for which there is no data to support an answer. From the point of view of science (this is a science forum), we are happy to say we don't know: it is beyond the limit of our knowledge.

 

[HonestJoe]

This is my first post on this forum.

Me too.

One of the problems in this discussion has been that none of the commentators know how to deal with a question for which we lack any real evidence.

The problem you have is the lack of a hypothesis. You can't test evidence (even abductively) without forming a formal hypothesis for your proposed explanation that can then be tested against whatever evidence there is. The fundamental problem with most promoters of specific religious explanations is their inability (or explicit refusal) to present detailed hypotheses.

I am not aware of any modern story or one from antiquity that depicts a transcendent, knowledgable, able being of any kind other than what is found in the Bible. I have not, of course, read everything or about every creation story.

Why must the cause of the universe be something that humans have made stories about? Why must the cause of the universe be anything that humans have even conceived of (yet)?

If one considers the above criteria of transcendence, knowledge and ability, the only known entity to allegedly exhibit those qualities is the entity that is the God described in the Bible.

That is a massive leap. The creation of the universe is just one of many acts, characteristics and conclusions attributed to the biblical god (not to mention those open to interpretation or potential self-contradiction). You can (sort of) present this as an argument for the existence of some kind of creator god, but you certainly can't limit that to any specific one, already defined or entirely new.

 

[exchemist]

Me too.

The problem you have is the lack of a hypothesis. You can't test evidence (even abductively) without forming a formal hypothesis for your proposed explanation that can then be tested against whatever evidence there is. The fundamental problem with most promoters of specific religious explanations is their inability (or explicit refusal) to present detailed hypotheses.

Why must the cause of the universe be something that humans have made stories about? Why must the cause of the universe be anything that humans have even conceived of (yet)?

That is a massive leap. The creation of the universe is just one of many acts, characteristics and conclusions attributed to the biblical god (not to mention those open to interpretation or potential self-contradiction). You can (sort of) present this as an argument for the existence of some kind of creator god, but you certainly can't limit that to any specific one, already defined or entirely new.

Hello Honest Joe, I've seen you at another place but not sure if we've ever interacted. Nice to see you here - and a good post, I think.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Nothing, then everything.” Including any god or gods.

"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion."

 

[Sarkus]

Hi, Concordicus.

So let's look at what can cause a Universe to exist. We can highly suspect that some causation is involved, because we know that the material world is built on physical laws of cause and effect, among a number of physical laws.

We can suspect, sure.
However, why must the laws within our universe be the same as those not within (if it is even meaningful to talk of that which is not "within" our universe, when our universe is all there is, as far as we know)? I ask this as we can create the model of a universe in which there is no cause/effect, where there is no "time", there simply "is". Cause/effect may well only be our subjective interpretation while inside such a universe.
I'm not suggesting this is the case, only that we can "suspect" many things, but it's just guesswork.

First, the causation must be transcendent, that is, it must exist outside the Universe.

"Must be" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
"Outside the universe" is also assumed to have meaning. Why must there be an "outside"?

Second, it must have requisite knowledge of how to cause a universe.

This seems to be begging the question: knowledge, philosophically speaking, is a justfied true belief (or along those lines). By saying that "X has knowledge" you are assuming an agency. For example, does water have "knowledge" of how to turn from liquid into ice at zero degrees C? Does water "know" how to erode a coastline? Maybe you'd be on safer ground with a different term?

Thirdly, it must have the requisite ability to cause a Universe.

This is a truism: that which does X must have the ability to do X. But it's really just begging the question, and otherwise rather empty.

If something has all those qualities, it could qualify as a potential Universe creator.

You're really just saying that if something is able to create a universe then it may have created a universe. Sure.

If one considers the above criteria of transcendence, knowledge and ability, the only known entity to allegedly exhibit those qualities is the entity that is the God described in the Bible.

Not true.
First, there is no evidence that God is "known". As said, "known" is a justified true belief. You can claim it to be "known" but you don't know it is known. It would be more accurate to say "the Biblical God is the only concept we are aware of that fits the bill", etc.

Second, the God of the Bible is not the only concept that fits such a description. The God of the Bible is a theistic God - i.e. one that reveals himself through revelation. There are other concepts of God, notably the deistic God, who simply creates and leaves the creation to its own devices, with nothing passed from "outside" to "inside". No revelation, and whose "existence" can only be logically inferred.
The God of the Bible is also a personal God, yet all you can conclude from your critieria is something resulted in the Universe. That it was caused - IF we assume that it was caused (see the question begging?). Just as gravity can "cause" a rock to fall and create ripples in a pond, there is no "knowledge" there, is there? Nothing other than mundane things interacting according to laws. The God of the Bible is far from a mundane object simply obeying laws.

At best your analysis can conclude that, if caused, the universe was caused by something able to cause. That's really all you have concluded, it we accept the premises. But then that's an awful lot of question-begging.
The "knowledge" of how to cause is unwarranted, unless one wishes to claim that liquid water "knows" how to turn to ice, or that a rock "knows" how to cause ripples in water when it impacts etc.
And the idea that the Biblical God is the only concept that fits the bill is simply wrong. Sorry.

That's my two pennies' worth, anyhoo.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"There are other concepts of God, notably the deistic God, who simply creates and leaves the creation to its own devices, with nothing passed from "outside" to "inside". No revelation, and whose "existence" can only be logically inferred."

My favorite theist dodge.

 

[TheVat]

So what are some attributes we would ascribe to something that might cause a Universe? First, the causation must be transcendent, that is, it must exist outside the Universe. Second, it must have requisite knowledge of how to cause a universe. Thirdly, it must have the requisite ability to cause a Universe. If something has all those qualities, it could qualify as a potential Universe creator.

The problem is one of logical coherence. By definition, nothing exists outside a universe because a universe is by definition all that exists. If you define a universe a certain way and then encounter evidence of something outside that universe, then you must update your universe's parameters. And then any proposed creator with the requisite knowledge and ability has a fatal recursion problem. There had to be a universe in which that creator developed its consciousness and design abilities. And so on in an infinite regress. So a created universe lacks semantic sense - not as bad as Noam Chomsky's colorless green ideas sleep furiously but still lacking logical connective tissue.

 

[TheVat]

delete

 

[RJBeery]

Well written but I could easily describe an-all powerful being that is more consistent, with fewer contradictions, than what is described in any Bible. For example, would a perfect creature truly crave praise from followers and “believers”?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The problem is one of logical coherence. By definition, nothing exists outside a universe because a universe is by definition all that exists.

Multiverse.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well written but I could easily describe an-all powerful being that is more consistent, with fewer contradictions, than what is described in any Bible. For example, would a perfect creature truly crave praise from followers and “believers”?

When it has an ego the size of a universe...

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem is one of logical coherence. By definition, nothing exists outside a universe because a universe is by definition all that exists. If you define a universe a certain way and then encounter evidence of something outside that universe, then you must update your universe's parameters.

I'd say there is an implicit "with its current physical properties" attached to "the universe". In other words, it's fair to say that whatever preceded the Big Bang would not count as "the/our universe".

That being said, it's a semantical discrepancy, one easily dodged simply by specifying - inline with use - what exactly one is meaning by a given word.

 

[Zero Point Native]

Multiverse.

And yet still just Universe.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And yet still just Universe.

And still fictionally constructed by a fictional character that conveniently panders to human needs. And kills them alot as well. And has a book that teaches his faithful to kill his enemies.

Charming.

If believers didn't carefully pick and chose which parts of the Holey Babble to follow they'd all be in jail or executed by now.

Shame, that.

 

[Zero Point Native]

And still fictionally constructed by a fictional character that conveniently panders to human needs. And kills them alot as well. And has a book that teaches his faithful to kill his enemies.

Charming.

If believers didn't carefully pick and chose which parts of the Holey Babble to follow they'd all be in jail or executed by now.

Shame, that.

Sounds like quite a story. I wonder if they would ever make a movie about this murderous buffoon. Oh wait, Hollywood would have to do it. Nevermind. I'll wait until A.I. has advanced enough to make full-length movies.