Hey all. Newbie, here.
I am endeavoring to find a way and end this simple-minded question of “who created the universe?”.
This question always comes up whenever I start a discussion with believers. Even when our argument at hand is on a totally separate string, they can never seem to help it but to come back to this question as a last line of defence. You carry along and give them the scientific theories and possible explainations of how the big bang started, and, as you would guess, they’d say it’s illogical as there isn’t proof yet for what caused the bang.
I have been doing some research about the infinite-regress fallacy. Now, normally, I would just answer by asking why god is exempted from creation, but naturally they’d say that he’s god and he’s beyong my intellect. Moral of the story is we go nowhere. Hence, I came up with a different reasoning to tackle this issue and would like to know what you guys think.
Here it goes:
When you ask about who created the universe, it gives an answer prone to infinite regress.
Infinite regress fallacy tells us to stop the argument with an immediate truth that is indemonstrable, as per Aristotle. The Big Bang is the only immediate truth that we have thus far. Its initial bang hasn’t been demonstrated yet. Therefore, the Big Bang is our indemonstrable-immediate truth giving rise to all existing materials.
The logic I present here, with my simple understanding of philosophical concepts, should rule out God as a creator. God’s existence lacks evidence for him to be qualified as the immediate truth. That said, believers of God may not use the argument of “who created the universe?” as a logical reasoning to his existence.
I look forward to read your response.
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.
I think you've laid it out pretty well. There is no way to prove that a god or gods doesn't/don't exist, we as atheists just point out that there is no evidence to support that he/she/it/zhe does exist. Once you get the theist to name their particular God, then you can start to point out the fallacies related to that God.
I agree with you completely. Theists have no evidence that their god created the universe or even that the universe was created. Nature may well be eternal.
So keeping god out of the equation. What do atheists and scientists say about the creation of the universe? Where did it come from?
@Searching for truth
Why do you assume the universe was created?
We do not assume its creation at all nor do we assume it comes from anything. As I stated in my post, this only leads to infinite regress. Unless we have a valid evidence to believe that it did actually come from something, then we can go ahead and ask your question.
Does that seem fair to your question?
@Hulkster Re: "Where did it come from?"
Before I read any of the other responses, I would like to give my simple answer to that question. It is not complicated at all....
I..... Don't..... Know.
See how easy that is? Why do theists have so much trouble with that? Anyway, now to go see what everybody else is saying.
A simplistic beginning of wave functions is far more plausible then anything else.
It conforms to the laws of physics, conforms to reality and doesn't require an unproven deity.
All things within the cosmos can be explained through natural phenomena without the need for a god.
Where did those wave of functions come from? Regardless of how the universe came in to existence whether it started as it is today or started as something much smaller. That thing it came from came from something.
So it would be known as the universal wave function which is the quantum state of the totality of existence.
And may I ask, how do you know it must come from something?
Searching for truth,
"What do atheists and scientists say about the creation of the universe? Where did it come from?"
Where does gold and carbon come from on the Sun? Didn't the Sun originate as a clump of hydrogen atoms?
The universe is a product of continuous evolution. And since it is continually evolving we are in an intermittent stage. We have no idea what will come after this particular stage.
If you regress in time you start with strings and quantum foam. It produces elemental particles which evolve into more complicated elemental particles until celestial hydrogen atoms form. As more and more hydrogen is formed it clumps together into huge balls and then goes nuclear, creating a star. The star cooks up heavier and heavier elements. Then the star goes nova and explodes. It becomes complicated buy new stars are formed and pull in the residue to create planets. After time chemical compounds are formed and they might become alive, evolving into countless lifeforms that can survive in the planet's atmosphere. And after billions of years one of the lifeforms asks the question "How did I get here?".
The Scale of the Universe 2
While I have been down this road before, let's try it again. Maybe this time it will end differently.
So, are you saying it came from nothing?
To answer your question, I assume the universe was created because it has to come from something outside of itself
@Searching for truth
Why does having no reason to think the universe had no creator mean I think the universe came from nothing?
If it is impossible for something to come from nothing, then that must mean nature is eternal and has no creator.
Saying the universe "has to come from something outside itself" only leads to the infinite regress problem that @Iam.90 covered already.
“Why does having no reason to think the universe had no creator mean I think the universe came from nothing?” Apologies, Madam. Please tell me what you think
“If it is impossible for something to come from nothing, then that must mean nature is eternal and has no creator.” Please elaborate and prove this statement
“Saying the universe "has to come from something outside itself" only leads to the infinite regress problem that @Iam.90 covered already” I disagree. The universe and everything in it has to come from outside of itself because everything eventually dies which means everything that ended and will end, at some point had a starting point. People choosing to completely ignore that there is something beyond what we can touch or see will run in to the infinite regress problem. To me, the entire creation is evidence of a creator. The simple fact of the precision of which the sun and moon have been moving about forever (Millions? Billions? of years) alone is good enough to reach a rational decision that there is something else way beyond a mere coincidence or chance.
When you ask those questions about the universe, it opens the door to something we both do not want and would eventually lead to nowhere; as I can simply ask the same questions about god (infinite regress). Of course, you’d say it is insensible to ask such questions about god by playing the god card. Why can you play the god card but not us? We must discuss efficiently as sensibly. That’s why Aristotle suggests using only immediate truths in logical arguments which ultimately stop the regress.
Just to clarify. I do not dismiss the existence of god on those grounds. I simply point out that theists should not be using this route as their argument since it is a fallacy. Should theists be able to somehow provide objective truth to the existence of god, asking questions about the universe’s creation would be valid. Otherwise, Theists should find another philosophical argument that isn’t fallacious.
“When you ask those questions about the universe, it opens the door to something we both do not want and would eventually lead to nowhere;” I disagree, it led me to answer. Atheists just don’t accept my conclusion and how I got to it.
“Of course, you’d say it is insensible to ask such questions about god by playing the god card. Why can you play the god card but not us?” Well, I never said that. And you are welcome to play the god card if you would like.
“We must discuss efficiently as sensibly” Agreed
“I simply point out that theists should not be using this route as their argument since it is a fallacy.” An atheist telling a theist how he or she should be able to argue? Hmmm is there some object moral or reason behind that?
“Should theists be able to somehow provide objective truth to the existence of god, asking questions about the universe’s creation would be valid.” Again, choosing and trying to control what can and can’t be said and used in an argument. Doesn’t seem right.
“Otherwise, Theists should find another philosophical argument that isn’t fallacious.” As a theist, I do not look at the creation of the universe as a philosophical argument, rather, a logical one.
"As a theist, I do not look at the creation of the universe as a philosophical argument, rather, a logical one."
It's truly hilarious you would make that claim, and use the common logical fallacy of begging the question in it.
Demonstrate some objective evidence the universe is created, I have asked you each time you make this claims, unsurprisingly you have completely ignored the question. Be warned that after you claiming it is a logical question, I will highlight any and all logical fallacies you make.
Precision in comparison to what?
Sorry, Green Man. My view is that there is no reason to think that the universe had a creator, and that if nature is not an isolated system, it is impossible to say anything about its origin.
It logically follows that is something cannot come from nothing, then a true act of creation (i.e. something coming from nothing) is impossible. As Antoine Lavoisier wrote: "In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed."
You are making an assumption that nature is not eternal. What evidence do you have of this?
You are again making an assumption that nature was created. To say that something that was created had a creator is redundant.
By precision, what do you mean exactly? What is your control group? I could be hit by a bus and think that must be a sign of precision. But similarly, I could just miss being hit by a bus and think that must be a sign of precision.
Not strictly true, Energy.
Let us not forget the basics, i.e. the conservation of energy.
@Searching for truth
Things die, but the energy from that life continues. It is known as "conservation of energy".
Are you aware that at one time the Moon was 20 to 30 thousand kilometers away from the Earth? It's distance is presently 384,00 km. The moon is drifting away from the Earth at a rate of 4 cm a year. And our planet's rotation is slowing.
I am not ignoring anything, I am learning stuff every day. You seem to be the one keeping yourself ignorant.
Ummmm what? What did anything you say have anything to do with anything I said? What did I ignore? Actually, don't even answer that because it doesn't matter. I'll most likely ignore your reply anyway
You have the choice to ignore.
But you pictured the universe as static, and that everything was "put in place" by something. The opposite is true, everything is dynamic and changing. In our short mortal lifetimes we may not easily recognize changes, but everything is constantly evolving.
At the instant of the rapid expansion, in the first billionth's of a second, the universe went through an evolution in energy. Since then we have seen the evolution of stellar objects and evolution in biology.
This very solar system is in a constant state of change. I pointed out the movement of the moon away from the Earth as a result of tidal forces. The Sun is evolving, it will change over time.
Out solar system is part of the Milky way, and in about four billion years it will collide with the Andromeda Galaxy, both will eventually merge, including the super massive black holes in the center in each galaxy.
@Hulkster Re: "Apologies, Madam. Please tell me what you think"
Ahem...*tapping Hulk on massive green shoulder*.... Pssst.... Uh, hey, Sapporo is a dude. Just sayin'.....
I thought he was but, went based off the profile
Pic. Thanks, Tin-man. I'm beginning to thing you aren't so heartless after lol
Sorry, Sapporo. No offense intended.
@Searching for truth
@ sft, you wrote, “Sorry, Sapporo. No offense intended.”
Why on earth would thinking someone is a woman be offensive?
@sft, are you going to answer my question?
I thought it was a rhetorical question. Some people get offended by it a ome don't. Best to play it safe and apologize in advance just Incase.
"The simple fact of the precision of which the sun and moon have been moving about forever (Millions? Billions? of years) alone is good enough to reach a rational decision that there is something else way beyond a mere coincidence or chance.
The sun orbits the centre mass of our galaxy, and the moon orbits the mass of the earth, so neither of them is moving by chance. So given you've used a straw man fallacy, your claim to be thinking rationally is hilariously ironic. Nothing in the explnation of their movements evidences anything supernatural, just the natural phenomena of gravity.
I dare you to make an argument from ignorance fallacy and ask how gravity came to exist, especially since you keep claiming to be thinking in accordance with the strict principles of validation contained in logic.
@Hulkster Re: "So, are you saying it came from nothing?"
*heavy sigh*.... Oh-great-goobly-goobs..... THAT again?....*shaking head sadly*.... Ya know - not for nothin' - but for somebody who regularly accuses others of "putting words in your mouth", you certainly do have a way of doing the same thing quite often. Nobody has said anything about something coming from nothing. What exactly IS nothing, anyway? I certainly cannot even remotely imagine it. If, however, you are able to somehow demonstrate some example of true and pure "nothing", or show some type of mathematical proof of "nothing", then PLEASE show us. And I am almost certain the entire scientific field would be most eager to see it as well. Oh, but wait.....
Before you even have a chance to tell us, you are not a scientist, are you? You are not an expert or professor in cosmology, or physics, or quantum mechanics, or any of the other related fields of study. And that is quite okay, because guess what.... NEITHER AM I. And with the exception of a few individuals on here who actually do have various degrees in such areas, pretty much everybody else on this site has zero advanced schooling or training in any of those fields. Sure, I am interested in those things as a "hobby" of sorts, and I had basic classes in high school, of course. But watching Nova and other such shows is pretty much the extent of my knowledge relating to the universe and all other NATURAL occurrences. Which brings me to my point.....
What in the unholy blue blazes does ANY of that have to do with being an atheist??? And I KNOW this has been asked before. (I very distinctly remember typing it a time or two in the past.) Obviously, however, it seems not to have sunk in with some folks. Once again....*heavy sigh*.... Simply put (AGAIN), I...do...not...know... how our universe formed. What I DO know, though, is that I do NOT believe it was created by some type of god. Once again, why is that so difficult to understand?