Badfish

A lot of Physics professors believe all known causes for the Universe fall into these 3 catagories.

1. Man Created the Universe
2. The Universe created the Universe
3. A Creator created the Universe.

There are no other possibilities, because a cause reacting to a cause, or a cause reacting from nothingness can still fall into "The Universe created the Universe". Even the notion of Universe Ad infinitum, still has a cause from another cause, thus creating an infinite situation.

Because the Universe was created by some force of energy, I believe this is a good topic. From nothingness can a proton and neutron exist, nor matter or anti matter.

Secular Elation

What is the relevance to evolution?

S.D.Jim

What physics professor believes that "1. Man created the universe"? And how would they postulate that humans did this?

Rational Ag

Actually, most physics professors I know, and the most commonly agreed upon theory that I have seen, is not on your list. The most agreed upon theory I have seen proposed would be that the universe has always existed.

In all three of the theories you propose, you seem very stuck on the word "created". I would suggest that you should step outside that box for a second in order to see it from a different point of view. The universe could very well just exist.

If you are a Christian, you assume that an eternal deity exists, and that he "created" the universe. Most scientific explanations I have heard involve an infinitely old universe in which matter is neither created nor destroyed, but simply changes form over time.

There are other possibilities, but you are apparently ignorant of them or you are basing your logic on a fallacy known as trifurcation. As stated above, the universe doesn't necessarily have to have been "caused" or "created", it could just exist.


If you are a Christian then you likely have no problem believing in an eternal being. The same logic applies to an eternal being as an eternal universe. Both "could" be eternal.

Since your conclusion is based upon faulty logic, it isn't necessarily compelling. However, I do question your knowledge and research on anti-matter. Last time I checked it was a pretty developing and compelling realm.

-Rational Ag

Liquidrage

If you are going to limit what could have created the universe to 3 causes I will take it a step further.

Only the universe could have created the universe. Because by definition your other two choices are part of the universe. Anyone who thinks otherwise is causing a breakdown in comunnication. This breakdown would be rectified by inserting whatever word they like to use meaning "everything".

Badfish

Really? There is no documented evidence of this. The fact that the Universe is expanding suggests that it originated from something. My Physics professor believes that the red and blue shifting is pretty good evidence that the Universe had a starting point.

If you believe the Universe always existed without any proof or historical data, what is so hard to believe about a Creator that has always existed? At least we have testimony of a creator always existing, we have nothing to suggest that the Universe has always existed, and I thought it is now most widely accepted that the Big Bang (no matter it's cause) was the origination of the Universe.

I didn't say it had anything to do with evolution, but if man could determine the cause of the Universe it would explain a lot. This subject touches on Creationism, I believe the Universe had an origin.

Resorting to namecalling, man can't you just give your opinion without getting defensive? What are the other possibilities, I already mentioned ad infinitum (always existed within or outside of itself, with or without self or external cause)

They don't believe this, but it is one of the 3 catagories of the creation of the Universe, again with blue shifting Physicists believe the Universe had an origin.

The Universe is the center of our being, it encompasses everything, but I think the Universe had an origin, to believe it always existed is ad infinitum and is not consistent with known sciences. This a no proof proposition, even God has more proof than this.

Rational Ag

There is plenty of strong evidence for an eternal universe. Consider: Our scientific knowledge tells us matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed (conservation of energy). You can ask your professor about that if you like.

Rather than a starting point, the "big bang" could very well have been "a bang" involving a large amount of matter and energy in our universe that had been previously existing eternally.

What your physics teacher believes could very well be evidence for "a bang", but has little to do with the eternal existence of all energy and matter that makes up the universe before such a bang.

If you believe a Creator always existed without any proof or historical data, what is so hard to believe about a Universe that always existed?

What a fun game this is.

The testimony you have for a creator comes in the form of a book that is a compilation of mythology and stories of a culture consisting of ancient sheep and goat herders that created said stories in an attempt to explain the world around them.

The "big bang" seems to be rather accepted, but the nature of existence pre-"big bang" is not.

Besides, since when does it matter which theory is accepted and which isn't? Does it ultimately affect reality if a group or culture believes something to be true if it isn't? Believing in something does not make it a fact, no matter how many people believe it.

Saying that you are ignorant of other theories isn't namecalling. Ignorance means that you do not have knowledge regarding a topic. I am ignorant with regards to quantum physics.

You stated that there could only be three possibilities to the nature of the universe. All three involved the universe being created. You stated that there could be no other possibilities. In doing so, you state that you are ignorant of other possibilities if they exist, which was the case.

Either that, or you were trying to obfuscate the issue with trifurcation.

I think it would be more accurate for you to say that you don't find the evidence for an eternal universe than to say that the evidence isn't there.

I seriously doubt that you are an expert on astronomy, cosmology, quantum physics, or any of the sciences needed to study this issue. In addition, I think you are probably quite biased in your opinion that evidence for god is overwhelming.

So, instead of stating that the evidence isn't there, why don't you say that you 1) don't find the evidence convincing, or 2) haven't looked into it enough, but don't want to because you are fine with your justification for your worldview?

-Rational Ag

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Rational Ag ]

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Rational Ag ]</p>

mibby529

@Secular Elation:
Actually, quite a bit. Remember, creationism isn't just here to contradict evolution; it's here to prove that the Bible is a completely factual account of the history of the universe.

Badfish

My belief or bias is seperate from this topic, the 3 I offered are from a creation POV, I would be interested in others.

I am new to ad infinitum theories, I would like enlightenment, that is why I made the thread.

DNAunion

DNAunion: GTX, perhaps the first thing you need to do is to explicitly define what you mean by "the Universe". Otherwise, you may not be on the same page as others.

For example...

DNAunion: As commonly stated, our Universe began about 15 billion years ago.

Perhaps ours is a "baby" universe spawned from another preexisting superverse. But even then, the superverse would not be our Universe, anymore than my mother is me. I am as old as I am, not as old as my whole lineage is. Same goes for our Universe.

Others could argue that there are multiple universes, which would contradict a common "definition" of the word Universe (basically, "all the exists").