Philosoft

Wow. Talk about a tall order.

<strong> "Something that might have caused the universe" is not a coherent proposition. It is not grounded in any known quantity.

<strong> In the end, it boils down to what actually happened. Mathematical probabilities of the likelihood of the universe aren't very convincing when your sample size is one.

Vic

Quote:

In the beginning there was no time and no space.

And no matter. No matter - no energy. Nothing. what comes out of Zero? Zero! So something had to be present. What it was is the proverbial $60,000 question. So what is it going to be? A "kick-starter" with no beginning or a lump of extremely dense matter also ever existent? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

AtlanticCitySlave

"Just a little tought experiment... Even if we had a creator which i still see as a posibbilty does that mean that the Creator is God???"

-Well, obviously, if you defined God as that which created the universe and everything in it (or created everything other than itself), then, by definition, it would have to be God. But, I assume that the term God at least implies other attributes besides creating something (including us), and so, while the creator may be God, it doesn't necessarily have to be.
For example, one can imagine an evil being creating our world the way it is now, only this being, rather than getting joy out of us doing good deeds, would get joy out of us torturing, raping, etc., one another. It would be very odd indeed to call such a being God, at least under any common uses of the term. Rather, Satan, devil, or some other name classifying an evil and very powerful creature would do the trick.

Mageth

Can any one of the latter belief complete the following sentence:
"In the beginning ........................."

What beginning are you referring to?
Are we talking about the "beginning" of this universe, or some ultimate beginning?

I submit that in the end it boils down to what is more plausible when one compares the mathematical probabilities of each theory.

Statistics and probability don't apply to a sample size of 1 (this is the only universe we know for certain exists, no?), nor to the theories in question. The only thing we can say in regards to probability is that, since the universe exists, the probability of its existence is 1, whatever the source.

So what is it going to be? A "kick-starter" with no beginning or a lump of extremely dense matter also ever existent?

A false dichotomy. There are other possibilities. For example:

1) a "kickstarter" with a beginning
2) a supernatural god as "kickstarter"
3) a natural being (e.g. in some other, external universe) as "kickstarter"
4) a singularity that was not ever-existent
5) an oscillating universe, forever expanding and collapsing

Ryanfire

I have modified this post as it no longer conveys my true thoughts. Sorry in advance moderators of the board.

Thanks,
Ryan.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Ryanfire ]</p>

Mageth

For anything to exist, it must be created.

So much for the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Step up and receive your Nobel Prize.

Ryanfire

*steps up to receive prize*

"I'd like to thank all the little people in the world, mom, dad, and all my fans out there."

Even as absurd as my notion might be, it's just a theory.

Care to explain how existence came to be? Give me your take on this.

Mageth

Care to explain how existence came to be? Give me your take on this.

If I could answer this, I'd win the Nobel prize.

You realize, I hope, that if you claim a "necessary" creator in order for things to "come to be," you're still left with the same question. If such a creator exists, how did it come to be? You're making a complicated question even more complicated by merely abstracting the problem back one level. Using Occam's razor, I throw out the creator.

Some declare the creator as "always existing" or "the first cause" or some such to circumvent the problem. Well, the same could be claimed for "things that exist" as we know them (particularly, the "stuff" of matter/energy). Again, Occam's razor prefers the latter.

Non-praying Mantis

Absurd notions are not classified as theories. They are hypotheses, such as what you stated above.

Here is my hypothesis:

A quantum fluctuation is the beginning of the big bang. I hesistate to say that it "caused" the big bang, but quantum events such as these are uncaused, that is, they happen spontaneously.

Anyway, all of this is speculation. Concerning the beginning of the universe, we must all admit that WE DO NOT KNOW! Everything is speculation and hypothesis.

I am willing to admit there might be a supernatural creator. Are you willing to admit there might not be one?

NPM

Jobar

"Who created the universe?"

"God."

"OK, then who created God?"

"Uber-God."

"And who created Uber-God?"

"Uber-Uber-God."

etc. etc. etc....

Or alternatively-

"Who created God?"

"He is self-created/eternal."

But this just adds an unnecessary step. Why not just postulate that the universe is self-created or eternal?

I spell this out because it seems so hard for many theists to understand...