The True Origin of The Universe?

[dumbest man on earth]

1.) - The Universe was Created by a Creator...nothing we can understand or comprehend "existed" prior to this Creation.

2.) - The Universe spontaneously(Big Bang) sprang into existence...nothing we can understand or comprehend "existed" prior to this spontaneous Event.

The above are only two examples of what could be limitless posits, musings, hypotheses, theories or ideas on how or why the Universe came to exist.

Are either of the two examples above, or any of the other limitless possibilities actually True and Factual?
Is there now, or will there ever be, any way to actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any suggested "origin" proposal is "correct"?

A Scientist may say : "We have performed experiments, and our interpretation of the results of those experiments seem to support our Theory."

A Theist may say : "We have Prayed to our Deity(s) for help and guidance, that help and guidance was provided, therefor those experiments seem to support our Theory."


My personal opinion is that it is a "Fool's Game" to even seriously ponder the "origin of the Universe".
Why, you may ask?

Well...a very intelligent, prominent and popular Astronomer and Author once wrote in a book, something that reminded me somewhat of the first few lines of the original "Serenity Prayer" :

God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

- ^^above quoted^^ from : http://thevoiceforlove.com/serenity-prayer.html

Mind you, I am not positing a "Theist" point of view! I am merely quoting a very intelligent sentiment.

At any rate, the previously mentioned Astronomer and Author was Carl Sagan. The title of his book that I am referring to is "Cosmos". - viewable, for free, as a .pdf, at this Link : http://www.proyecto2501.com.ar/wp-c...s (Random House, New Edition, 1980, 2002).pdf

In that book the Author includes what appears to be his thoughts on : the Big Bang Theory ; Red Shift ; Doppler Effect, etc.
In Chapter X, beginning on Page #175, of the .pdf, and titled "The Edge of Forever", Mr. Sagan includes the following two paragraphs, on Page #184 :

The observable universe itself is only a few tens of billions of light-years across and, if there is a vast supercluster in the Virgo group, perhaps there are other such superclusters at much greater distances, which are correspondingly more difficult to detect. In the lifetime of the universe there has apparently not been enough time for an initial gravitational nonuniformity to collect the amount of mass that seems to reside in the Virgo supercluster. Thus Smoot is tempted to conclude that the Big Bang was much less uniform than his other observations suggest, that the original distribution of matter in the universe was very lumpy. (Some little lumpiness is to be expected, and indeed even needed to understand the condensation of galaxies; but a lumpiness on this scale is a surprise.) Perhaps the paradox can be resolved by imagining two or more nearly simultaneous Big Bangs.

If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

- ^^above quoted^^ from Page #184, of :http://www.proyecto2501.com.ar/wp-c...s (Random House, New Edition, 1980, 2002).pdf

So...
1.) - "IF...a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions."
2.) - "What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang?"
3.) - "What happened before that?"
4.) - "Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing?"
5.) - "How does that happen?"

Mr. Sagan, in his book then seems to compare those "still more difficult questions" about the "big Bang theory", to similar questions that arise "IF" the "Creation" theory is correct.

Mr. Sagan then posits a couple of very interesting, and very wise, possibilities :
1.) - "And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question?"
2.) - "Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"

When I read that - and I have read it many times - I get the impression that this very intelligent and well educated Astronomer and Author had put quite a bit of time, consideration and deep thought into the matter, before arriving at his conclusions.

Carl Sagan, in his book, at least, seems to posit two things that may just possibly be true :
1.) - "that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question?"
2.) - "why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"

Mr. Sagan then goes on to include "five small extracts from such myths...of the world before creation, and of the creation of the world". After the extracts and further discussion he writes :

These profound and lovely images are, I like to imagine, a kind of premonition of modern astronomical ideas.* Very likely, the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang, but it is by no means clear that it will continue to expand forever. The expansion may gradually slow, stop and reverse itself. If there is less than a certain critical amount of matter in the universe, the gravitation of the receding galaxies will be insufficient to stop the expansion, and the universe will run away forever. But if there is more matter than we can see - hidden away in black holes, say, or in hot but invisible gas between the galaxies - then the universe will hold together gravitationally and partake of a very Indian succession of cycles, expansion followed by contraction, universe upon universe, Cosmos without end. If we live in such an oscillating universe, then the Big Bang is not the creation of the Cosmos but merely the end of the previous cycle, the destruction of the last incarnation of the Cosmos.

- ^^above quoted^^ from Page #186, of :http://www.proyecto2501.com.ar/wp-c...s (Random House, New Edition, 1980, 2002).pdf

My take from reading "Cosmos" and other writings by Carl Sagan, is that, although he basically lent his support to the "Big Bang" theory, that he did not fully accept that it was indeed the actual, factual, in all of reality, no other possibility, written in stone, impossible to be incorrect - TRUE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE!!

So, okay.This Mr. Sagan, was in my estimation :
1.) - most likely more intelligent than myself.
2.) - definitely more educated than myself.
3.) - absolutely in possession of quite a bit more knowledge about the subject than I ever will be.

After contemplating Mr. Sagan's writings, and admitting to myself the 3 things enumerated above, I honestly find myself accepting, what Mr. Sagan opined :

- "that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question."
- "why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed."

What may I ask is achieved by arguing for "Creation as opposed to a Big Bang"?

What may I ask is achieved by arguing for a "Big Bang as opposed to Creation"?

Is it at all possible that the argument can ever be definitively settled?

Is it at all possible that it is, as I opined earlier in this Post, a "Fool's Game" to even seriously ponder the "origin of the Universe"?

After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

 

[paddoboy]

1.) - The Universe was Created by a Creator...nothing we can understand or comprehend "existed" prior to this Creation.

No evidence of such, and mostly based on myth from times long ago, not long after we climbed down out of the trees....
The biblical account to is a book of myths written in an obscure dark age, by obscure men.

2.) - The Universe spontaneously(Big Bang) sprang into existence...nothing we can understand or comprehend "existed" prior to this spontaneous Event.

Overwhelming evidence shows that the Universe/space/time [as we know them] evolved from a point event referred to as the BB/Inflationary theory.
The BB was also a term of derision applied by another named Fred Hoyle, an otherwise great astronomer/physicist, who had other ideas [and baggage it seems]
The evidence that supports the BB are the following...
[1] Observed Universal/space/time expansion
[2] The relic left over heat we call the CMBR at 2.7 K
[3] The abundance of lighter elements
[4] The formation of galaxies.

No other theory matches those observations as well as the BB.
In fact the BB/Inflationary model, is now so well supported, it will almost certainly be encompassed by an eventual validated QGT.

The above are only two examples of what could be limitless posits, musings, hypotheses, theories or ideas on how or why the Universe came to exist.

The BB along with other prominent theories, are much more then just theories...They are scientific theories, well supported and appear to also support each other.
Other prominent theories in the same echelon of near certainty are Evolution, SR, and GR.

Are either of the two examples above, or any of the other limitless possibilities actually True and Factual?
Is there now, or will there ever be, any way to actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any suggested "origin" proposal is "correct"?

A theory grows in certainty, the more it aligns with observational and experimental data.
Newton theorised that if we jump up in the air, we will come back down via gravity. [unless we can jump up at 11kms/sec, then we will go into orbit.
So yes, some theories, despite derision from creationists and such, are near certain, and near fact.
The beauty though of the scientific methodology is of course, a scientific theory is always open for revision and modification..eg: Inflation with regards to the BB.

 

[origin]

DMOE this just seems like trolling, because it is clear that the Big Bang has scientific evidence and genesis has only the bible. I guess all I can say is, it will be interesting to see if you can achieve your goal with this thread.

 

[paddoboy]

My take from reading "Cosmos" and other writings by Carl Sagan, is that, although he basically lent his support to the "Big Bang" theory, that he did not fully accept that it was indeed the actual, factual, in all of reality, no other possibility, written in stone, impossible to be incorrect - TRUE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE!!

So, okay.This Mr. Sagan, was in my estimation :
1.) - most likely more intelligent than myself.
2.) - definitely more educated than myself.
3.) - absolutely in possession of quite a bit more knowledge about the subject than I ever will be.

After contemplating Mr. Sagan's writings, and admitting to myself the 3 things enumerated above, I honestly find myself accepting, what Mr. Sagan opined :

- "that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question."
- "why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed."

What may I ask is achieved by arguing for "Creation as opposed to a Big Bang"?

What may I ask is achieved by arguing for a "Big Bang as opposed to Creation"?

Is it at all possible that the argument can ever be definitively settled?

Is it at all possible that it is, as I opined earlier in this Post, a "Fool's Game" to even seriously ponder the "origin of the Universe"?

My opinion tells me that you are looking for excuses where none exist.
Science will never be complete, but to use that fact as creationists do, to support there own illogical fantasies, with no evidence, is NOT SCIENCE.

On Carl Sagan, all Sagan was doing was trying to explain to those religiously inclined, that there view of some infinite all powerful being, without beginning, can be applied to the more explanatory reasonable assumptions of science and the BB, nothing more, nothing less.
In other words, if existing for all eternity can be applied to some deity, why cannot it be applied to the Universe itself. Nothing more, nothing less.

In fact over the last 15 years or so, there has been much said about the Universe being the "Ültimate Free Lunch"
That may have been Hawking from memory, not too sure....
Here's a paper on it anyway....
http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf

 

[paddoboy]

After contemplating Mr. Sagan's writings, and admitting to myself the 3 things enumerated above, I honestly find myself accepting, what Mr. Sagan opined :

- "that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question."


.
- "why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed."

What he said was an effort in explaining the contradictions of creationsists, and yes just as we accept Evolution as near fact, we still do not understand the whole process.

Anyway, I'm sure he has also spoken of the Ultimate free lunch I mentioned in my previous post

What may I ask is achieved by arguing for "Creation as opposed to a Big Bang"?

Creation is not science...The BB is science and aligns with the scientific method based on overwhelming evidence.
What is achieved?
Well at least we may save some kids from being brain-washed by thousands of years of myth before science started to exert its more realistic alternative...Let's hope so anyway dmoe, Hey?

What may I ask is achieved by arguing for a "Big Bang as opposed to Creation"?

Same as previous question, except put in a reverse type of mode.

Is it at all possible that the argument can ever be definitively settled?

Not sure if thousands of years of mythical oppression can change humanities views in any short time, but as science continues, new realities will be revealed, and new scenarios will be supported by evidence.
In other words, jst as the Catholic church has so wisely accepted the BB and Evolution, I see the probable future extinguishing of religious propaganda as possible.
But I am an optimist.

Is it at all possible that it is, as I opined earlier in this Post, a "Fool's Game" to even seriously ponder the "origin of the Universe"?

The fool's game as you put it, is evidenced in the belief of fairy tales, goblins, Ogres and such.
But I believe we are slowly rolling it back....ever so slowly.

 

[paddoboy]

DMOE this just seems like trolling, because it is clear that the Big Bang has scientific evidence and genesis has only the bible. I guess all I can say is, it will be interesting to see if you can achieve your goal with this thread.

Probably in agreement, but let's see how it pans out.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

Oh, you're all just big dummies. As usual network television has all the answers:

[video=youtube;lhTSfOZUNLo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhTSfOZUNLo[/video]

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us, as the song says.

 

[paddoboy]

One very important point I did forget to mention. As great an educator/cosmologist as Carl Sagan was, the book you quote from "Cosmos" I do have, and it was published in 1980.
Cosmology has changed somewhat since then, and I'm sure Carl's views also changed somewhat up until he died in 1996.

That's the beauty of science which will always see it reign supreme. It progresses on new knowledge, gained from new and further observations and the advanced technological equipment being used.

Religion/Creationists are though stuck in a rut. Beliefs based on myth, fairy tales and other child like concepts.
Although, to be honest, even religion has advanced somewhat from deities immortalised in the Sun, Moon, Mountains, etc, to someone who had no beginning, and who created the whole shebang out of SFA. [tic mode on of course]

 

[dumbest man on earth]

SciForums is supposed to be a Science Forum.

I was taught that in Science, making Objective Observations was the "Golden Rule", so to speak. And that Subjective Observations were not considered "Good Science".

I presented an OP in a very simple and Objective vein, with a very coherent and "Highlighted" Topic :

The True Origin of The Universe? - After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

My hope was to stimulate an Objective and interesting "discussion " on that Topic.
Being that I Posted the OP on a Science Forum, I would prefer an Objective Discussion.

I would also prefer that this Thread not devolve into a Subjective Argument.

If this Thread has not already devolved, and not already been "Derailed" or "Hi-Jacked"...

...I honestly welcome any Objective Observations concerning :

The True Origin of The Universe? - After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

 

[paddoboy]

You have been given many reasons and evidence that supports the scientific discipline of Mainstream cosmology, and reasons why creationism or any religious solutions are just man made myths, going back to when we first climbed down out of the trees. :shrug:

You have given no legitimate reason, why anyone should doubt the current BB/Inflationary model of Universal/space/time evolution.
The Carl Sagan quotes were from 1980!
I have given four pillars on which it is supported.

Religion on the other hand is not science, but a human frailty that if desired, should be kept at home and not mixed in with the proper science/cosmology world of knowledge.

 

[paddoboy]

Quite an Interesting piece I just found on the ultimate free lunch scenario.....

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
from:
Two questions immediately arise: (1) What about conservation of energy? (2) Why did the universe appear at all? As it turns out, conservation of energy is not a problem. While all the mass in our universe has positive energy, the gravitational attraction has a negative energy associated with it, which precisely balances the positive one. The total energy of our universe is precisely zero, so that there is no problem with the universe materializing out of nothing. Why did the universe appear? Because the laws of physics allowed it to. In quantum mechanics, any process has a certain probability of occurring, and no cause is needed. You will notice, however, that we do have to assume that the laws of physics continue to apply even when there is nothing. I shall return to this assumption in a future post.

I do not want to leave you with the impression that Vilenkin’s scenario of spacetime tunneling from nothingness into existence is an established fact. At this point it is no more than an attractive speculation that is consistent with the laws of physics. But it addresses what is arguably the biggest question of them all: How did it all begin?
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

[paddoboy]

Another nice speculative explanation, by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff:

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.

from....
http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""



I see the previous two speculative explanations of the Ultimate free lunch and the Universe arising from nothing, as critical to any potential debate between a reasonable hypothesis that as yet, we are unable to validate one way or the other and the divine creator myth.
A future QGT may alleviate that limit to our present knowledge, one day in the near future.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Sagan recognized that claiming that there is no God is as irrational as claiming there is one. He once said:
"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/01/atheism-is-very-stupid-carl-sagan.html

There are a few more insightful Carl Sagan quotes at the Link.

 

[kx000]

I believe good know how got it done, and holds the answer. Do you believe there is a know how? Or God?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Things change and as we gather new information we can add that to what we already know and build from that. Remember one time that flying like the birds was thought of as ridiculous and stupid but as we investigated and tried new ideas flying did happen but it was once thought to never be possible. As time progresses and we keep adding to our data banks through experimentation we learn that what we once thought impossible is now possible. As the beginning of our universe is thought to have different ways in which it came to be science is still unraveling the mysteries of just exactly how it did form but they are only speculating on what the facts are but those speculations are founded on observation of thousands of scientists which seem to point to one direction and for now that is what we can use. Tomorrow we could find new information which could easily change things.

 

[paddoboy]

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/01/atheism-is-very-stupid-carl-sagan.html

There are a few more insightful Carl Sagan quotes at the Link.

Not sure about the validity of that quote and whether it is taken out of context or not, but interesting to note the source of the link....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From that link.....

About This Site
The purpose of this blog is to dispel the myth that science has somehow proven that religion is false, or that philosophy shows that it cannot be true. The opposite is often the case. Modern discoveries in science often confirm the claims made by religion for many years.

The purpose of this blog is not to prove that religion is true, or that science is false. I am not trying to preach or convert people. Rather, my goal is simply to show that the claims of religion are entirely consistent with discoveries of science. To this end I will answer all questions posed to the best of my ability.

In other words, my only goal is to show that the following quote is true:
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Now anyone that sees fit to take as Gospel [excuse the pun ] what some religious site says, with the obvious amount of baggage they have, really needs to think again.
And of course it reveals the nature itself, of the members pushing this religious/deity myth over science.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@ - paddoboy

An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid

Not sure about the validity of that quote and whether it is taken out of context or not, but interesting to note the source of the link....

Not sure...???!!!
...well, here are 5 (five) more "sources" to the same quote :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801870_2.html
http://izquotes.com/quote/263888
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/590352-an-atheist-has-to-know-a-lot-more-than-i
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/n...someone-who-knows-there-is-no-god-t13734.html
http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Carl_Sagan

paddoboy, if you are not going to address the Topic of the OP :

The True Origin of The Universe? - After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

paddoboy if you do not realize that real proper Science is about Objective Observations ; Not Subjective Observations ; Nor ad hominem attacks :

ad ho·mi·nem adjective \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

-^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem

paddoboy, I humbly request, would you either :
- Please address the Topic of my OP?
- Please refrain from clogging the Thread with whatever it is that you ...think?...believe?.. you are doing?
Please???

 

[paddoboy]

I have often discussed the comparisons of "non believers" like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins.
Carl Sagan, like Einstein, often argued the point [1] in the OP, in a cool, calm, and collected manner, even while their creationist opponents stooped to ridicule and derision of science and the scientific method.
Both, like most cosmologists, agreed that as yet we don't know how or why the BB banged with any certainty.
Has anyone even said that?
Although latest thoughts, taking into account quantum uncertainty as proposed in my two earlier links, do give reasonable speculative scenarios that do not contravene any of the known laws of physics and GR.
Both Sagan and Einstein knew, just as any scientists knows, that while we have no evidence for God, we also have no evidence referencing his non existence.
The arguments put by Dawkin's on the other hand, are more abrasive and a "take no prisoners" like approach is used.
Atheism is generally speaking, a rejection of deities of any sort, and certainly a rejection of divine creation as detailed in the non scientific choice at point [1] in the OP, and as a supposed alternative to the scientific evidenced solution at point [2]

All three, Dawkins, Sagan and Einstein did not believe in any divine creation myth as put in point [1] and if all were alive today, with the current knowledge at hand, would probably, almost certainly, support the "Ultimate Free Lunch" solution as previously discussed.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy if you do not realize that real proper Science is about Objective Observations ; Not Subjective Observations ; Nor ad hominem attacks :

-^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem

paddoboy, I humbly request, would you either :
- Please address the Topic of my OP?
- Please refrain from clogging the Thread with whatever it is that you ...think?...believe?.. you are doing?
Please???

You are off topic.
But anyway two requests...
Where have I attacked you?
And what do you mean by your little "Real Eyes Realize Real Lies"comments in your avatar?

 

[paddoboy]

After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

The fundamental laws of the Universe were most probably determined at the precise moment of the BB, and the speculative quantum fluctuation/s that drove that incident.

The belief that some magical deity instilled those laws is unscientific and rather mythological.