The Creation Of The Universe

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
FievelJ's picture
The Creation Of The Universe

The universe began with nearly nothing, but how did it actually begin? We know the Big Bang happened, and we know it happened close to 13.8 billion years ago. We know the universe is still expanding too. But do we have any idea why it happened?

Anyways just for discussion.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Whitefire13's picture
Feivel ... “the creation of..

Feivel ... “the creation of...”.

You been smokin’?

FievelJ's picture


"You been smokin’?"

I wish, will be once I get my extra check. I am going to get my medical marijuana card, and then just get it from a dispensary.

Why what's your opinion as to how or why this universe got started?

I don't really know, but I doubt a god was necessary for its creation.

And if a god created the universe how come that god hasn't made it clear which one they are.
I would have many other questions as well, like why condemn homosexuality which occurs naturally. I never really was attracted to the opposite gender enough to do anything with any female. If the Christian god was correct, why flood the world? Why does god need rest?
If god was all knowing then why do many things which are in the bible. Why make me homosexual and then make it a sin? I am fed up with Christians claiming something natural is a sin. The tower of babel never happened, and the plagues were natural weather phenomenon not caused by a god. The Christian god didn't do anything, and nor did any other god.

In the end it's easy to prove a god does not exist. It isn't something people can prove that there's and existence of any god. Religion is about not dying, which we all have to die in the end and there's nothing we can do about that. You are here for awhile, and then you are not here. One simply ceases to exist. And I am better with that then to have to live forever and what exactly would I do for an eternity? There can not possibly be enough to keep me occupied for that much time. Even for 1,000 years I would get tired of living. Even if I would be allowed to have my own universe, it still wouldn't be enough. So I feel perfectly fine with ceasing to exist.

How bout you?

David Killens's picture
We have been able to directly

We have been able to directly observe the origins of this universe back to the Cosmic Microwave background, which came 380,000 years after it all began. We have been able to explore back to ALMOST the very beginning by physic models and math.

It all goes back to a singularity, of zero dimensions but incredible energy and heat. That energy and heat later converted to matter. The expansion was faster than the speed of light (which does not violate the laws of physics). Which explains why the universe is 13.8 billion years old, but spans 93 billion light years.

Whitefire13's picture
Feivel...I love you brah :)

Feivel...I love you brah :)

So... my first thought that I was more “moral” than “god” was the actual actions of love. From there, like yourself I moved into other areas. Nothing wrong with being gay - but being gay isn’t “you”. You are you and how you are in relationships...all relationships - know what I mean?!? My two oldest are heterosexual, my youngest homo - I don’t introduce them as such (wtf?!?!)

“In the end it's easy to prove a god does not exist”

Actually, I don’t take this position. It’s easy to disprove “man’s idea” of god - and so far, religious man can’t back his claim for the existence of “god”

“Religion is about not dying, which we all have to die in the end and there's nothing we can do about that. You are here for awhile, and then you are not here. One simply ceases to exist. “

Yup. Again no evidence for “life after death” -
Lots of claims and proof. Life is precious. Life is worth living and enjoying honestly. I have people that are not in my life anymore and I am fine with that (obviously, so are they). But I’m not deluded enough to think that once I die, and “they” die our problems will be “fixed” because we’ll be together where-ever... in other words, I treat everyday as my last and ensure the ones I love know it through words and actions. It also puts “what’s important” into perspective.

“And I am better with that then to have to live forever and what exactly would I do for an eternity? There can not possibly be enough to keep me occupied for that much time. Even for 1,000 years I would get tired of living. Even if I would be allowed to have my own universe, it still wouldn't be enough. So I feel perfectly fine with ceasing to exist.”

Now again, I know where you’re coming from... and all evidence points to non-existence (no consciousness outside a mind) - fuck, my “consciousness” has stopped when I’ve been on an operating table with an alive brain (thank fuckin’ god, er, science)...

HOWEVER (mind candy alert) if I was “god” and “bored” I might force myself to “forget” and “re-learn” everything - or “blow myself up”, hence physical universe...

Feivel - mind candy can be fun. BUT rely on EVIDENCE and live your life according to reality. This is vital in today’s whirlwind world - otherwise you can fall “into” all sorts of speculative imaginary woo woo and “living” according to “it”

FievelJ's picture


I love your replies, and I believe that's right.
I do live life treating all others nice, as it is simply how I want to be treated.

The universe is here because it's here, maybe it never started out with completely nothing.
In any-case we know it started about 13.8 billion years ago, and didn't need a god to get started.

And if it needed a god to get started, which of the millions of gods did it?

Anyhow thanks for the reply. xD

Whitefire13's picture
Feivel... to answer you

Feivel... to answer you original question re origin.

I have stated before that I cannot imagine “nothing”...once it is “qualified” or “identified” it is “something”.

To keep things simple...I lean towards a “combination” of ideas - because there are so many “mysteries”. But, I don’t “know”. I’m not “studied” in any of the fields I just watch from the side-lines.

Cognostic's picture
@Fievel: RE: "The Creation

@Fievel: RE: "The Creation Of The Universe"

1. You do not get to assert the universe was created without evidence. We have no evidence at all that the universe was "CREATED."

2. re: "The universe began with nearly nothing," You have absolutely no evidence for this claim either. A singularity is not "absolutely nothing. It is not "nearly nothing." Another claim you would have to demonstrate.

SINGULARITY: In scientific terms, a gravitational singularity (or space-time singularity) is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. In other words, it is a point in which all physical laws are indistinguishable from one another, where space and time are no longer interrelated realities, but merge indistinguishably and cease to have any independent meaning.

3. RE: Any idea - NO. The Big Bang is the current accepted model and various ideas are being explored for the expansion.

David Killens's picture
Unfortunately Fievel, you are

Unfortunately Fievel, you are still carrying around a lot of baggage imposed by religion. I suggest you toss all of your notions out the window and start fresh, by consulting valid scientific sources

Kevin Levites's picture
See my post #108 in thread

See my post #108 in thread "An atheist's perspective on how the Universe came from nothing", where I suggest a simple argument that gives us infinite duration into the past, infinite duration into the future, and still shows how the Big Bang occured without resorting to God and without modifying any physical laws.

Another point made by Carl Sagan: If God created the Universe, then where did God come from? If this is an unanswerable question, then why not skip a step and assume that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question. If we say that God has always existed, then let's skip a step and say that the Universe has always existed.

There is no need to resort to God, unless it makes us feel better . . . in which case, we should acknowledge this so that we don't deceive ourselves (this is per me).

Randomhero1982's picture
What is my thoughts

What is my thoughts concerning how the universe came to be? Damned if I know... but I'm happy with that.

And I'm also happy to leave it to experts to actually demonstrate and produce evidence to support any assertions or hypotheses.

May I ask you though fievel... what would be the point of a 'God(s)' creating us, let alone a universe?

Calilasseia's picture
I've already covered this

I've already covered this topic elsewhere, courtesy of this post, where I covered in detail a mechanism for the instantiation of the current observable universe, as proposed by two leading cosmological physicists, Paul Steinhardt & Neil Turok.

They propose to bring into play a process known as "braneworld collisions". A little explanation is necessary.

You're probably familiar with the words "string theory". The underlying postulate underpinning this, is that particles such as electron, quarks, etc., instead of being point like entities, possess an extension into space. This extension takes the form of a curved line segment (hence "string").

Now the entities in string theory are one-dimensional. What about extending this concept to two-dimensional entities, and proposing the existence of sheets of metric space, associated with particle like properties? Or three-dimensional volumes thereof? Or, for that matter, entities composed of as many dimensions are are needed to support various interactions?

Welcome to branes. Which are, in effect, units of space-time with various particle type properties associated therewith, such as mass, electrical charge, spin, etc.They also have an energy value associated with them. Needless to say, these values of mass, charge, energy etc., are expected to be quantised (i.e., only take specific discrete values, instead of lying on a continuum).

One of the developments that took place within braneworld theory, was the realisation that it was possible for some of these objects to possess negative mass. Sounds strange, I know, but allowing these objects to possess negative mass is not only consistent mathematically, but also does NOT introduce any physical unreality into the system, otherwise, the notion would have been jettisoned some time ago.

Steinhardt & Turok realised that this could provide a nice means of solving some pressing cosmological problems, but came to this realisation via a somewhat tortuous route. That tortuous route came about, by trying to solve an entirely different problem, namely, that string theory enjoyed an embarrassment of riches, in the form of having produced no less than five mathematically consistent solutions to various particle physics and cosmology problems, but with no way of distinguishing between them from an experimental standpoint, in order to determine which was the solution applicable to the real world.

That particular problem was solved, by adding an extra dimension to the space-time metric. The string theory solutions I've just cited above, operate in 10 dimensions. However, Steinhardt & Turok were among the physicists who demonstrated, that by adding an extra dimension to the space-time metric (as is done in supergravity theory, which works in 11 dimensions), those five 10-dimensional string theory solutions are seen as 10-dimensional projections of a single, consistent, 11-dimensional whole.

Having solved that problem, Steinhardt & Turok looked at what might happen if one had two 11-dimensional branes, and allowed them to collide. That's when life started to become really interesting.

Before proceeding, If you're wondering why we don't experience those extra space dimensions that are a part of all this, there's a reason. Those other space dimensions are compactified, into a structure known as a Calabi-Yau manifold. The use of this compactification is important, because manifolds are well-defined mathematical entities, allowing mathematicians to link geometry to topology and calculus. Manifolds also allow for selected space dimensions to be "curled up", as it were, into microscopic closed regions, while the remaining space dimensions are open, and visible on the macroscopic scale. In a sense, this view of space-time posits that you and I are, in effect, swimming in a sea of ultramicroscopic Calabi-Yau manifold "bubbles" that make up the space-time we observe, with just three of the spacetime dimensions thereof open and macroscopically visible.

If you've managed to wrap your head around that, it's time for the fireworks.

Steinhardt & Turok devised a scheme where closed 10-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds are moving among each other in an open 11-dimensional space. They then asked what would happen if two of these collided.

The answer was startling.

A collision between two of these 10-dimensional manifolds would produce exactly the effects required to generate the observable universe as we see it, via a "Big Bang" type scenario. That collision would result in three of the 11 space dimensions opening up at the point of collision, into which energy would be transferred, allowing the observable 3-dimensional universe to be instantiated. Even more remarkably, the mechanism arising from that collision would eliminate a big problem from standard big Bang cosmology altogether - the so-called "singularity problem". The two physicists alighted upon a mechanism for the instantiation of the observable universe, that does NOT involve a singularity. Therefore, there are no intractables to deal with, of the sort that plagued any attempt to wind the clock back before the Big Bang previously.

But it gets even better still. The mechanism they proposed, also left behind it a physical "signature" of its occurrence in the observable universe just instantiated, a signature that physicists could look for. Thus, Steinhardt & Turok's idea was experimentally testable, to see if it worked.

That experimental test centres upon gravitational waves, which are generated whenever any high-energy events take place in a space-time metric. These gravitational waves can have variable wavelengths, depending upon the nature of the event that produced them. By measuring gravitational waves, including precise measurements of their wavelengths, one can produce what is called a "power spectrum" of those waves - in effect, a simple graph of frequency of occurrence against wavelength.

Steinhardt & Turok's braneworld collision generates these primordial gravitational waves, and in quantity. But, the fun part is, the power spectrum takes a specific, exact form. The graph is skewed toward short wavelengths - short wavelength primordial gravitational waves are produced in greater quantity than long wavelength gravitational waves, and by a specific amount.

This is why scientists have been gearing up to build working gravitational wave detectors - precisely to look for that signature, the moment they know how to separate primordial gravitational waves from gravitational waves of more recent origin. Once they have that capability, they are going to look for that specific power spectrum, and if they find it, Steinhardt & Turok pick up a Nobel.

Now of course, there are other cosmological proposals in the literature, but this one has the beauty of being subject to a relatively simple experimental test that we can perform here on Earth, and determine whether or not the braneworld collision scenario is correct. Because at the moment, none of the other contending cosmologies generates a signature of this sort, and therefore, this test will discriminate between the braneworld collision scenario, and the rest. Find that power spectrum, and the braneworld collision mechanism becomes the one all the physicists will be interested in, because that piece of data will pretty much eliminate all of the competing hypotheses at a stroke. None of the competitors would be able to explain that piece of data.

In short, we live in interesting times. We are on the verge of acquiring, quite literally, the keys to the cosmos. And we didn't need mythology at any point in the exercise, just a willingness to investigate exotic examples of testable natural processes.

And if your head is spinning after reading this, Feivel, don't worry, it pretty much made a lot of tenured cosmological physicists' heads spin when it was first published. Just take your time, and re-read this, until everything sinks in.

David Killens's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

Thank you, this adds to my knowledge base and understanding. I will never pretend I can come close to a trained physicist, but I try. This also (amazing co-incidence) to a Twitch stream I watched last night, where Professor Brian Keating offered some insights.

I does not get going until ten minutes in.

For anyone wishing to dip their toes into the world of physics, I suggest you follow the Twitch channel CosmoQuestX, which is designed to bring science to people like me.

And yea, we are living in interesting times. I love it.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.