God and the Universe

Oisif wrote:

Remember, that physicists are as often homosexuals as any, and those who pay them, even more so. It has always been political interests that have paid for science, and the findings of science, in all fields, tend to be what serves those interests at any particular time.

First of all, my best friend is a homosexual and a lot smarten than 90% of the hetero's I come in contact with!
Next, destroying the messenger because you don't like the message is juvenile

On the physics issue, science had no choice because of findings which did not fit in the old system of mechanical physics. The science community really did not want it, but in order to go on, there was no choice.
Quantum physics is today where Eastern philosophers were 2500 years ago, that reality is an illusion
Einstein in his famous "Theory of relativity" states that matter and energy are the same, as a fact matter is generally quantified in terms of energy.
Also that all energy in the universe is constant.
Much of his theory has been proved and none disproved.
Do I understand it all? No way man!
But so many findings [discoveries] of the past baffled the people of that time and often met great resistance among the religious community.
So, nothing is new under the sun!
Back to the universe, if we accept that a God created it, do we then also have to accept that he is maintaining it? Or that he is micro-managing it? How far do we travel on that path?
And if all has to have a beginning and can not come from nothing, where did God come from?
By the way, science does not say that the big bang came from nothing, because all energy was there already.

I think it depends what God you are referring to and in what sense you are talking about God.

If you are talking about the vengeful nasty angry God of the Old Testemant or the loving God of the New Testemant or some other God with human traits I would say no. If this is the God to pray to to help me find a parking space then no.

If you are talking about some creator of the universe, which could be intelligent, that set the sequence in motion which is our universe, then your argument for that unknowable thing (God if you like) is as credible as any other hypothesis until the reality is proven.

Thanks PaulNZ - I like this answer, and Yes I'm talking about the second type of God, not the 'nasty' one!

For me, I think it is a more credible answer than the other two possible answers:
That the universe created itself from nothing doesn't seem very credible to me because in my experience, things don't create themselves.
The other explanation is that the universe has simply always existed - i.e. for an infinite length of time. Again, this does not seem credible because the concept of infinity itself doesn't seem credible - in my experience everything is finite.

[Scott]

How did the universe come to exist? This question does not make sense to me. The universe entails all of space-time. Everything and any event or 'coming to' or 'happening' exists within time and or space in the universe.

For these reasons I believe that "God" whatever that might be, has as much right by way of credibility, to be considered as any other explanation for existence of the universe.

Very well, I'll concede on the credibility debate. But my question remains unanswered, and I will consider anybody's responsible answer: What is knowledge of a creator for the universe supposed to accomplish? To my mind, it doesn't answer anything while also making the origin of existence harder to explain.

Hello Scott, many thanks for this site, I am having a blast!

I know what you are saying, but your point is stil hard for many to grasp.
In astronomy we still are given distances in lightyears so those of us who live in this virtual reality can understand it somewhat.
In either quantum physics or eastern philosophy, reality is an illusion, but it is hard to think that the child in your picture is an illusion, especially when its diaper needs changing
On the question of the universe, if a deity brought it into being perhaps we owe it some gratitude, however,if it was the big bang we can park the whole idea of a deity in the corner of some dusty old museum.

Regards, John.

The other explanation is that the universe has simply always existed - i.e. for an infinite length of time. Again, this does not seem credible because the concept of infinity itself doesn't seem credible - in my experience everything is finite.

I see your point, but I think it is based on an incomplete understanding of the nature of our world. The universe was created by the Big Bang. What existed before that is entirely unknown. But there is no need for something to exist for an infinite length of time because time itself is not a constant. Maybe there just was no time at all prior to the Big Bang. Time is a concept created by humans. In order to fully understand modern physics, you have to realize that time as you know it does not exist outside of our world.

Cronos988 said:

"In order to fully understand modern physics, you have to realize that time as you know it does not exist outside of our world."

Time is an abstract concept and human; however matter, reality and existence are not. The universe is real and exists. It is full of observable matter and potentially unobservable matter.

If all the matter in the universe started from a singularity with a rapid expansion and gravity and spin did the rest, then I would describe that as an "effect". That being the case what was the "cause"?

A Poster He or I wrote:

But my question remains unanswered, and I will consider anybody's responsible answer: What is knowledge of a creator for the universe supposed to accomplish? To my mind, it doesn't answer anything while also making the origin of existence harder to explain.

The one-off act of creation by a Creator makes no difference at all, and is the way in which the Deists sought to retain some religious respectability in a scientific age. However, the theists' creator is usually good, i.e. embodies an ethical system, and the theists' Creator also has an end in view according to what he desires to happen. Each of those moderating clauses added to the basic one-off Creator do have repercussions in human behaviour.

Ethical systems when they are legitimated by some important myth have more force and so better maintain the status quo ;usually the status quo of the ruling regime.

The Creator who not only creates in the beginning but also determines what the end of history will be influences people to become fatalistic in the predestinatory fashion.This fatalistic attitude results in the faithful not trying very hard to change the world for the better.

Time is an abstract concept and human; however matter, reality and existence are not. The universe is real and exists. It is full of observable matter and potentially unobservable matter.

If all the matter in the universe started from a singularity with a rapid expansion and gravity and spin did the rest, then I would describe that as an "effect". That being the case what was the "cause"?

My statement about time was intended to show that there might have been a state prior to the Big Bang that was not "indefinite" in that time was not existing in that state.

Without the concept of time, the concept of cause and effect becomes foggy. If there is no time, the cause cannot precede the effect, indeed there is no way to separate cause and effect anymore. Therefore the whole idea of cause and effects seems to fall apart.

This is one of the major problems regarding the origin of the universe: we cannot imagine a state that is so fundamentally different from what we know. There does not have to be a cause. Cause and effect work in the existing universe, but not necessarily in any other state.

The problem is that our thinking always includes cause and effect, since it is a fundamental part of our ability to understand the world. Therefore, we cannot easily, and maybe not at all, understand the origin of the universe.

How did the universe come to exist, and is the idea that 'God' created it any less credible than any other explanation?

Prior to the general acceptance of the Big-Bang theory materialists used to argue for an eternal universe, this took the form of the Steady-State theory. I think the idea that God created it is therefore more credible now than previously. Alternative theories such as the many universes or multiverse theory are unfalsifiable as are theories which postulate events before the Big-Bang. These theories are attempts to prop-up the idea of an eternal material universe which has been proven to be as false as it is illogical. The universe is not eternal and an infinite causal chain is logically impossable.

I find the general idea that consciousness had a part to play is more intellectual and suited to philosophy than any materialistic theory.

How did the universe come to exist, and is the idea that 'God' created it any less credible than any other explanation?

Prior to the general acceptance of the Big-Bang theory materialists used to argue for an eternal universe, this took the form of the Steady-State theory.

That's not really the case. The Steady-State Theory was no more 'eternal' than the Big Bang, and science's theists and atheists were no more aligned with one theory than with another. There has been a concerted political effort on the part of the media to alter that perception. The problem is that the media cannot decide whether it is going to back theism or atheism. Those who govern the media are also those who fund science, and currently, those people favour atheism, for 'good' political reasons. But it's not long ago that they were pushing theism.

In those days, before 'Big Bang' theory had won, the perception was that science and theology dealt with aspects of reality that had no real contact with each other. In those days, scientists did not often come out with public partiality to either atheism or theism, as they tend to now. The saddest thing about Dawkinsism (and now Hawkingism) is not the message that these media efforts promote, foolish though it is; it is the ready acceptance by the public of the legitimacy of scientists to offer opinions on matters that do not concern them, on which they have no expertise; opinions that earlier generations of scientists would have said were unprofessional and indeed contemptible to offer.

The fact is that science is able to change its ideas quite suddenly, and philosophers and theologians are best keeping it at a distance.

That's not really the case. The Steady-State Theory was no more 'eternal' than the Big Bang, and science's theists and atheists were no more aligned with one theory than with another. There has been a concerted political effort on the part of the media to alter that perception. The problem is that the media cannot decide whether it is going to back theism or atheism. Those who govern the media are also those who fund science, and currently, those people favour atheism, for 'good' political reasons. But it's not long ago that they were pushing theism.

I sense a conspiration theory... Also "science", as I think has been pointed out multiple times is a method. it holds no views, and it does not get funded.

I see no proof for your argument that the media is funding atheism, or that the media is altering any perception of which theory was predominant when. I also see no incentive for doing so. You are claiming an awful lot of concerted action considering you do not offer any evidence.

In those days, before 'Big Bang' theory had won, the perception was that science and theology dealt with aspects of reality that had no real contact with each other. In those days, scientists did not often come out with public partiality to either atheism or theism, as they tend to now. The saddest thing about Dawkinsism (and now Hawkingism) is not the message that these media efforts promote, foolish though it is; it is the ready acceptance by the public of the legitimacy of scientists to offer opinions on matters that do not concern them, on which they have no expertise; opinions that earlier generations of scientists would have said were unprofessional and indeed contemptible to offer.

Science and theology are not opposites. In fact Theology is utilizes science, as science is a method, while Theology is a field of study. What matters do not concern scientists in your opinion? Why would the method (you see, i repeat this quite often, for clarification) of science be banned from certain aspects of life?

Anything can be analyzed scientifically. Whether the resulst are meaningful or not has no bearing on the validity of the scientific method. Science can be applied to all aspects of reality, and the origin of said reality is an aspect of that.

The fact is that science is able to change its ideas quite suddenly, and philosophers and theologians are best keeping it at a distance.

Science does not have ideas. People have ideas. Theories change with new observations. I don't see a problem with that. A theologist or philosopher who does not know the scientific method has a serious lack of knowledge. It is sad that people think belief or conviction absolve from utilizing the laws of logic or scientific theory when discussing scientific theories.

That's not really the case. The Steady-State Theory was no more 'eternal' than the Big Bang, and science's theists and atheists were no more aligned with one theory than with another. There has been a concerted political effort on the part of the media to alter that perception. The problem is that the media cannot decide whether it is going to back theism or atheism. Those who govern the media are also those who fund science, and currently, those people favour atheism, for 'good' political reasons. But it's not long ago that they were pushing theism.

That is a flat out conspiracy theory and really not worth engaging. However Fred Hoyle absolutely presented Steady-State as the materialistic alternative to divine creation, I saw him demonstrate it.

Fred Hoyle absolutely presented Steady-State as the materialistic alternative to divine creation, I saw him demonstrate it.

Thank you for a confidently predicted post. There was the odd-ball exception that proved the rule.

Thank you for a confidently predicted post. There was the odd-ball exception that proved the rule.

Your refusal do acutally debate your points makes this discussion kind of one-sided, don't you think?

I find the general idea that consciousness had a part to play is more intellectual and suited to philosophy than any materialistic theory.

Why would the idea that a conscious being of some sort created the Universe be more "intellectual" than any other theory? Materialistic theories offer loads of points for philosophic debates, for example determination and whether our action ultimately have any effect at all on the Universe at large.

An Infinite causal chain makes no sense logically, that is true. But a consciousness existing outside of time and causation is equally problematic. After all, how do we even define consciousness if one of the main factors we use to determine whether a being is conscious is that it understands the relation of cause and effect?