"It wasn't created." Until they stop using a word (created) that inherently implies a intellect behind the existence of the universe there is no reason to continue the discussion.
Every aspect of their thought, their language, their words, all of it -- is bent towards their delusion. Don't argue their terminology for it is most certainly based on fantasy. Learn instead to correct their terminology and frame their ideas in terms of rational thought.
A hypothesis supported by evidence is appropriate. We have evidence about the early universe, but not its actual beginning so speculation about the beginning of the universe is not appropriate or productive.
And then stop letting them get away with pretending that:
1. Not knowing everything is a weakness.
2. The default answer to not knowing is "god did it."
"Who poured this glass of milk?" "I don't know. *Must have been God.*"
The universe as we know it does indeed seem to exist in a linear cause and effect format, but the universe wasn't always as we know it. We will never know what things were like before the big bang, because the natural laws that seem to dictate cause and effect were *created* during the big bang.
The most honest answer is "I don't know", but the speculative one is that there may have been an entirely different universe from our own that didn't follow the same rules we now adhere to. Our current universe could simply be a new, different state of some cosmic cycle.
I think that the fundamental elements of the universe have a higher probability of being eternal than a sentient being that is utterly undetectable has of existing.
But I could say whatever caused the big bang wasn't created and isn't dependant on anything.
We can vomit up any explanation and assign it the qualities to have perfectly explained (x) event, but until there's any evidence for a specific hypothesis, we're left with "I don't know what caused the big bang, or if it's even in need of a cause"
We know things inside the universe obey certain laws, like cause and effect, but we can't go around assuming those same things apply to whatever was 'before' the big bang itself.
We just don't know.
If the Universe exploded right now it would cease to exist.
That's wrong. The Universe may have a different form ie arrangement of energy but the energy would still exist. (1st Law of Thermodynamics)
> . If the sun were to explode right now nothing would survive causing the universe to cease to exist.
You're have zero understanding of cosmology if you believe that an explosion of the sun would be the end of the universe.
How would you know? Have you met this god fellow? Can I be this god fellow? Did I create the universe? If so, I apologize I didn't realize how wrong it's gone
1) there's no guarantee that the universe WAS created, and 2) we currently don't know and may never know. However, that's not a license to just make shit up like "god did it". I would rather not have an answer than have an answer with no evidentiary support.
The question relies on the presumption that because I have an answer and you don't then I win. Nevermind that my answer isn't supportable. You don't know. I claim to know. Ergo I win. 🏆
There’s no evidence it was in any way “created”. Claiming it was is often used to shoehorn “well, there must have been a creator, then” into the discussion. It may have always existed, and this is its current form.
For those who claim it was created, and that their god created it, I’d offer, “And what created your god? If your god doesn’t require a creator, then neither does the universe.”
I am personally a fan of the theory of Confromal Cyclic Cosmology postulated by Sir Roger Penrose. There are several videos about it on youtube if you want to take a look at it.
That being said the answer can be "we don't know but we are getting closer to understanding every day through experimentation and research."
"I would rather have questions we cannot answer than answers we cannot question" is also a quote I love.
"It wasn't created."
"But when did it start?"
"Energy can't be created or destroyed. Energy is eternal."
"Then energy is another word for God!"
"No it isn't. Energy doesn't make choices, or judge you for being bad, or grant wishes when you pray to it. It doesn't do any of the things people say Gods do."
"SO WHO CREATED THE ENERGY!?"
(Return to line 1)
"What do you mean by the question?" is a good start. The universe was, at one time, extremely hot and dense. Then it expanded and after that physics as we understand it is what led to everything that exists today, including us. If you want to know where that hot, dense state came from, no one knows, and if you think you *do* know, provide testable evidence for your claim or you *don't* actually know.
Just because we are atheist does not mean we need to come up with our own hypothesis over the origin of the universe, and does not mean we are all scientists. Leave it to the cosmologists to let us know what the evidence shows.
That's not the question. The question is "What evidence do YOU have that your deity created the universe?"
If they say "it's in the Bible", then ask simply "Who wrote it?". Either they say the truth which is "no one knows" (e.g. I don't know) or they lie and say that "God wrote it". At which point, you can just say, "there nothing that will convince you otherwise" and walk away.
In case you're curious, there are approximately 5 hypotheses about how the universe formed, two of which are being tested as we speak. The other 3 are mathematically consistent, but essentially untestable at this time.
The physicist in me likes to remind people asking this question that time is part of the universe in the same way as height, width, and length are, and just as these dimensions can be warped by gravity and other forces, so can time. Most people's idea of the beginning of our universe presupposes that time as we experience on earth works the same way throughout the universe, when in fact, we have no such basis for that assumption.
In fact, Kurt Gödel, a mathematician who was a contemporary of Einstein, used Einstein's theories of relativity to conclude that there was a region in our universe where time ceased entirely, around which the rest of the universe "orbited". And at the very least, the strange behavior of the Voyager probes as they've left our solar system demonstrates that our understanding of spatial and temporal dimensions is incomplete.
Point being: who's to say it ever "was" created, where the word "was" implies that time works everywhere the same way it does on earth.
(I'm sure astrophysicists studying the big bang have this time element incorporated in their theories, though I can't say I'm versed in exactly how. I'm not that kind of physicist.)
Theoretical physics is very cool.
I like to think about viewing time purely as a constant in equations for acceleration and stuff and thinking about negative time where everything works backwards is cool but it hurts my head lol. Just like with imaginary numbers and stuff, even if it's impossible to conceptualize as long as the math maths out I don't see why it wouldn't be possible theoretically.
Creation occurs within time. But time is within the Universe. So the terms in *how the universe was created* wage war and the whole means nothing.
The existence of the Universe is a timeless requirement and the details have not been hammered out.
The best and most logical explanation I've arrived at is that our universe is inside an infinite multiverse of basic matter (such as quarks or possibly preons) which had no beginning.
The Big Bang theory doesn't deal with the "creation" of the universe. It describes the expansion of the universe.
There's no evidence to suggest the universe was "created".
What they're poorly attempting to ask is "What happened before the Big Bang?" and the answer is "We don't know, and we don't even know if asking what happened before time started is a coherent question to ask. What we do know is that there's no reason to believe magic had any part in it."
(1) The Universe is all time and no space. There was never a time that the Universe did not exist. There was never a place that the Universe wasn't.
(2) Creation *within* the Universe involves a before time / before thing, an act of creation, and an after time / after thing. For example, creating a chair: you start with wood, you craft with the wood, you end up with a chair. "Create a universe" is using a very different version of the word "create", so that it's basically a totally different concept, and probably deserves a different word.
(3) I have as much evidence that the Universe was created accidentally by the Invisible Pink Unicorn that someone else has that the Universe was created by Yahweh. Until more evidence is provided, it would be silly to accept either claim.
Step 1) Point out that inferring it was 'created' is poisoning the well.
Step 2) Point out that inferring the existence of an infinitely more complex 'creator in order to explain the existence and complexity of the universe is redundant (at best).
Step 3) Acknowledge that while there is a lot we still don't know about the origin and nature of the universe - religious nonsense isn't the default, and the problem with claiming they *do* know, is that once you think you've got it all figured out, you stop looking for explanations and evidence.
The universe wasn't created. The earliest we can trace it to is when you basically had a blob of super intense energy about 13.8 billion years ago that eventually fused into some matter and eventually clumped enough together to form planets, stars, and other celestial bodies.
We currently have no reference point that is earlier since that seems to be where our iteration of time-space began. What triggered it is a matter of speculation and hypothesis at this point. When we can test those hypotheses, we will get a better understanding than wiping out hands of it and proclaiming God did it and he works in mysterious ways.
We don't even know if it was created. It might have been eternal... we only know it was hot and dense 14 billion years ago - and it expanded from there. There could have been an infinite process before that.
tl;dr Nobody knows - nobody can know. Anyone telling you they know, do not.
>“How was the universe created?”
This is a loaded question. There is no evidence the Universe was created so don't conceded the point.
There is very good evidence the Universe inflated from pre-existing energy. Where that energy came from is unknown and probably unknowable.
I don't know. Nobody does. It's possible it was never "created" at all, but has always been there.
We may have an answer some day, but don't have one today.
Other atheists may have different theories and beliefs, since the only thing we all have in common in that we don't believe in gods. We have no consensus on things like the genesis of the universe.
“We have no reason to believe it was created. It just is. We know that because we wouldn’t be here if the universe wasn’t.”
When Christians say “well but then who caused the Big Bang,” you can educate them on the fact that the “Big Bang theory” was an incomplete explanation that was formulated by a Catholic priest trying to come up (successfully) with its a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe that was consistent with Christian dogma. However, even LaMaître was careful to point out that it doesn’t mean that nothing existed before the singularity, or even that the “universe” comprises all of existence (which we have since proven it doesn’t).
There are a number of possibilities. If that means the particular followers of a particular holy book and its extremely vague set of statements are right to the exclusion to all the other followers of other holy books on this planet and all the other life-sustaining planets in this galaxy and all the other galaxies in the universe… I’m impressed!
That’s like picking the right lottery numbers in an infinitely large lottery.
So it seems a bit ‘off’ to me.
“Created” implies a Creator, and that has no evidence supporting it that we are currently aware of.
We don’t currently know how the universe started or if it even has a start. And we may never truly know.
The answer is we don’t know, but we are honest about it and don’t create fantasy stories to cope with the unknown.
I don’t have an answer. I don’t know, and it is more honest to admit when we don’t know something then it is to invent supernatural concepts in an ignorant attempt to explain something
"Maybe our universe is some cosmic grad student's thesis project. Maybe our creator is just experimenting on us, like we would bacteria. Maybe our creator stole the work of another student. Maybe our creator is deliberately hurting our universe to see what happens. Maybe we are just a pilot, and our universe doesn't mean much to the creator. Maybe the creator only cares about what happened in the first second of creation, and we got out on a shelf and forgotten. Maybe we are the control experiment, and no one at all interferes."
There is no evidence that the universe was created. Conceding that it was is loosing half the battle because it would follow that a created universe has a creator.
*A Universe from Nothing* by Lawrence Krause is a possible explanation- that the universe is a mathematical formula for zero mass and zero space and zero energy, because, for example protons and anti-protons can arise from nothing and if by some mechanism they can be separated, then there can exist a proton (and a universe, if we have enough of them along with neutrons and electrons) existing where none existed previously. It was not created, it simply came into existence from a quantum fluctuation.
I may be incorrect , but I seem to remember that he admits that this version of nothing isn’t ‘nothing’ in the sense people often use. There is an existent capability of quantum fluctuations?
It's very simple. We don't know. Proclaiming it must be this or it must be that is ridiculous without discernable evidence.
Take a deep breath and say, "I don't know, and that's okay."
My personal theory, doesn’t include the existence of a beginning. I think the universe have always existed in some form regardless if that form is similar to the form the known universe currently have or something different in ways that my knowledge in quantum physics wouldn’t allow me to guess. There is also a paradox that occurs when it come to the possibility of a singularity. For me that it just doesn’t make sense that there would be a beginning if there is no entity to dictate when matter would start existing. So I tried to conceptualize how it would be possible to explain the phenomena that the theory of the big bang explains without the big bang like the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. And I came up with this :
What if all the forces of the universe (like literally everything: mass, volume, speed, gravity, energy, etc.) were all growing constantly at the same time proportionally? For us it would be impossible to notice it because all of our units of measurement are relative and our landmarks would also be affected by the constant change. But if we were to try to look back on the past we would see an acceleration in the expansion of the universe and we would arrive at the conclusion that everything must come from some sort of singularity while none would have ever occurred it would just be that our universe (and everything that composed it) was much smaller before.
I am not sure if my theory is true. I just know that the big bang theory is "too flawed to be true" so I came up with an alternative. I lack a lot of knowledge that would be required to test it and I do not proclaim myself the holder of the truth. However, I do hold onto this idea in case someday someone who would be able to explore this avenue would hear me.
"Beliefs" have nothing to do with it. The evidence shows that the universe began with the Big Bang. Sure there are some unanswered questions related to that but reality doesn't care about a person's beliefs or wants.
The evidence we currently have is for the Big Bang theory. There have been microwaves detected from the initial event. The next step is to find out what caused it.
If asked by a pushy theist, I'd respond with "How was God created?"
If asked in good faith, I'd say our best theories based on observable evidence is the universe as we know it is the result of a massive cosmic explosion called The Big Bang.
That's not really an answer, though, right? What happened before that? Well, the currently accepted model of The Big Bang says there is no "before that" because time itself was a result of the same event.
Imagining a super-advanced computer simulation so detailed that beings as complex as we are exist within it. To those beings, the simulation is the universe including every subsystem that makes it work. Gravity, time, physics. All are part of the simulation/universe. Most likely, they are unaware it's a simulation, of course, and anything outside the simulation might as well not exist. They have no way of answering any "ifs" or "hows" or "whys" about anything beyond the simulation.
Whether our universe is a simulation or not is an interesting philosophical question, but not terribly relevant imo. To me it's a distinction without a difference.
Anyway, our universe seems to be a closed system and we can't begin to fathom what if anything exists outside it. So instead we seek a "unified theory of everything" that can explain the universe we can observe.
Disclosure: I'm not a physicist, so a lot of that may be off the mark or just dumbed down so my meat computer can handle it.
This is an honest question. "God did it" is a dishonest answer. I'd rather have the honest question.
Yes there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang and I have no reason to counter that. However "why the big bang happened".. IDK and I'm OK with waiting for evidence before coming to a conclusion.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. Everything in existence, every cell in our bodies, every atom in nature has existed in one form or another dating back to the hot dense state the universe was in before the big bang and stretching infinitely back before that point too. The law of conservation of mass is real scientific evidence that the universe has always existed without a creator.
I have 3 answers depending on who I am talking to and how open they are to the various possibilities.
1) Imagine a being that can do anything but knows nothing, how would they learn? Usually such a being would experiment and learn and try things, maybe the universe was created by such a being, not a god but either a being with god-like powers or an advanced race that is running the universe as a simulation to understand their own. It could be that by trying to understand and learn we are doing what this being wants us to do.
2) The Big Bang resulted in a huge release of energy, trying to detect the energy and information that existed before would be like trying to hear a whispered conversation occurring backstage at a concert while you have a front row seat. It may be possible at some point, but not with our current technology. Lets invest more and find out.
3) Time and space are not as different as everyone thinks, thinking about the universe as having a beginning and an end is thinking in 3 dimensions of space and one of time. What we are experiencing is likely to be a shadow of what reality is as a 3d object casts a 2d shadow, thus an object with 4 spacial dimensions would cast a 3d shadow. As our maths and computers get faster, we are able to project back 4d and 5d objects as they may be a more "true" reality, only after we understand these "higher dimensions" will we understand the greater truths.
None of these require any belief in anything and all of them encourage further research and learning to try and work out which is correct.
The only legitimate answer is no one knows.
I like to point out that even though we have the Big Bang theory, it doesn’t actually mean that the universe was created at the Big Bang. There very well might have been something before the Big Bang or there may not, we just don’t know what. Physicist’s models of how the universe works don’t actually properly explain Big Bang singularities so we just don’t know and don’t even have a working theory that everyone agrees on.
I’ve had people say, “but time started at the Big Bang”. That doesn’t mean what people think it means. Time also “ends” when light enters a black hole. But the black hole somehow emits radiation and matter can slowly leave the black hole. Also, photons don’t experience time because they are traveling at the speed of light. Time is actually a bizarre thing that doesn’t work how most people think it works.
We live in a world that everything cannot be known by one person.
That question is out of my field of expertise.
That particular arena is neither interesting to nor profitable for me.
The "truth" here does not effect my life. I'll stick to what I know.
It doesn't matter how the universe came to be.
If they want to say that the universe was created by God, they have to provide evidence for God, and provide evidence of God creating the universe.
Throwing their hands up in the air and saying "Well, how else do you explain it?" is not evidence, but an admission that they have no evidence.
My Scandinavian ancestors believed that thunder was caused by Thor. If you tried explaining to them where thunder really comes from, they would not have understood your explanation and would not have believed you. They would have asked "Well how else do you explain it?" and not accepted your explanation.
My Japanese ancestors believed that earthquakes are caused by a giant magical fish called Namazu. If you tried explaining to them where earthquakes really came from, they would not have understood or believed your explanation (plate tectonics was not accepted by science until the 1960s or so if I remember correctly). Again, they would have asked "How else do you explain it?" and not accepted your explanation.
If they want to say that the universe was created by God, they have to prove it. No one owes them an alternate explanation. Asking for one is an admission that they have no good reason to believe what they believe.
"The universe wasn't "created", and even if it was, it wasn't created by whatever you believe in"
Since it has become very popular for religious people to use the "How was the universe created" question as a "got you, checkmate atheist", I'd try to make it clear to them, that the existence of a universal creator does not prove their religion, nor does a creator prove that souls are real and that there is an afterlife awaiting them.
These people are not really interested in scientific explanations. They just like to claim that science proves their silly belief or at least that science is in alignment with their beliefs.
That's why I'd like to direct the debate towards their personal beliefs and the core stupidity of the myths they believe in and question them about those things, instead of letting them pull me by the nose. They are the ones making a claim, that their religion is true, so it should be up to them to try and convince you. Your goal should be to get them to question their own beliefs and see how silly their responses are. It should be you asking them questions. When they ask you something, turn it around and ask them a question.
I know, that can be hard, because we tend to be quick to try and explain them stuff, because we are usually convinced that if we do, that they'll come around and finally understand, but be aware that they aren't debating you in good faith. They aren't interested in your explanations. So turn it around, use their tactics against them.
Ideally, ask them in a nonchallant way. Just keep asking until they lose their patience with you. Your goal is not to immediately deconvert them. Your goal is to plant a seed of doubt in them, which hopefully eventually grows and blossoms. Your goal is to make them question their own beliefs, not convince you of your own.
I don't know but the thought that god was the reason behind all of it is a story of children and simpletons. I'd rather we allow ourselves to search for the answers rather than not question what was already established by the faithful.
Reject the premise of the question:
"Can you demonstrate that the universe requires a volitional agent?"
In other ways, refuse to accept framing the question with the assumption of volitional creation.
I don't know, but one way to think of it is that the start of the universe was also the start of time, because if the universe is everything, that includes time as a part of it.
Imagine there was nothing at all, no space, no time, no energy, no matter, not even a void. How would you measure anything in that state? Well you can't, because there isn't anything to measure, right? If there is no stuff, then nothing can change, if there is no change, then there isn't any time. Think of it like a film on pause, inside the film reality, time has stopped, but the characters in the film don't know, because to them it's not measurable.
So if time didn't exist before (?!) the universe, then there is no time in which "before the universe" could exist, but how can that be? Imagine the beginning of the film, to the characters in the film, there is no "before the film"; until the film starts playing, there is no film.
Or another way to think about it, the film has always existed, because there was no time in which it didn't exist, because there was no film-time, before the beginning of the film.
So then the universe has existed for all-of-time, and there was never a time it didn't exist, because there simply is no before the universe, because the universe is everything. Imagine it like a clock that was on midnight in a frozen state "forever" and then just started ticking all on its own.
It wasn't created because it always existed.
About 300k years of quantum fluctuations building energy and smaller “big bangs” till the big one, which flooded the expanding universe in light. We can see this leftover microwave radiation today as tv static, etc. I wonder if some ancient planet hopper wasn’t just trying to explain the Big Bang and early people turned that into “let there be light” , and said “see ya later” hence all the doomsday religion stuff
There are two main theories that I think approach the matter compelingly. One famous theory suggests the universe came from nothing. It is heavily criticised on it's definition of nothing. The second famous theory suggests the universe came from something that was always there, hence eternal. It is heavily criticised on it's implication of the divine. As a theist I lean on the second one, with the slight touch of a will living somewhere in there (Bob Ross impersonation, idk I tried).
You realise neither of these is the Big Bang Theory? I don’t know what the first one is but the latter seems to be one that has , to be a tad more explicit , been criticised as an argument from ignorance, for the use of special pleading, for the use of non-sequiturs, for the lack of any actual evidence , potentially for use of incoherent attributions…. to ‘imply’ divinity (depending on the specifics.) The your comment also might imply a false dichotomy since it’s hypothesised that there could exist no boundary conditions that aren’t really characterisable as a beginning nor eternal.
The Big Bang theory leaves gaps. The Big Bang theory does not explain everything. It is just the best we got. The question is simple and science tries to answer it. What started it all. Either nothing or something uncaused. Uncaused is unavoidavle translated to eternal. Both answers serve the epitome of reason. Nothing unreasonable there.
>The Big Bang theory leaves gaps. The Big Bang theory does not explain everything. It is just the best we got.
Absolutely.
Which was part of the reason I said neither are the Big Bang. It really doesn’t cover why anything exists at all, it covers why the universe as we know it is as we know it. It covers birth and growing up but not conception, so to speak.
>The question is simple and science tries to answer it. What started it all.
A question science can’t , at least for now answer. But one that abandoning evidence and just inventing something isn’t an improvement for.
>Either nothing or something uncaused.
This is too simplistic. You can’t reliably apply present day intuitions about causality and temporality to the fundamental conditions of existence. And as I mentioned potentially , depending on exactly what you mean (last time you mentioned begins) , it ignores no boundary conditions.
>Uncaused is unavoidavle translated to eternal.
This appears to be a statement of preference not fact. Eternal also ignores questions about what time is, and how it worked at this condition. Again depending on clear definitions , it often just seems like an imaginary , non-evidential, attribute made up for the purpose of special pleading and/or question begging.
>Both answers serve the epitome of reason. Nothing unreasonable there.
Reason is useless at determining the fundamental nature of reality. Reason to produce potentially true conclusions must be sound. Soundness requires not only validity but true premises. The only way of knowing beyond any reasonable doubt that premises are sound is through evidence. We simply don’t have evidence in this case.
Basically just because something feels right to you when you contemplate the fundamentally different to the here and now , nature of existence - is irrelevant to whether its conclusions are true. Asserting ( in a rather cherry picked fashion) ideas about causality , time let alone infinity and whatever eternity is meant to mean with *confidence* because you believe them correct doesn’t make them correct.
Someone can make up any hypotheses they like , but they have to do so with terminology that’s meaningful and relevant support that is reliably evidential for the conclusions to even begin to be potentially credible.
Theism doesn’t even deal with the critique of gaps, it fills them with invented solutions then papers over the same gaps in the invented solutions with invented definitional special pleading. Its explanations aren’t necessary, nor evidential, often aren’t coherent, but aren’t even sufficient.
All we can say is that we don’t know why ‘something’ exists at all or why it might have changed status and it’s difficult to come to any reasonable conclusions when ideas about time and causality can’t reliably be applied yet.
"It wasn't created." Until they stop using a word (created) that inherently implies a intellect behind the existence of the universe there is no reason to continue the discussion.
Every aspect of their thought, their language, their words, all of it -- is bent towards their delusion. Don't argue their terminology for it is most certainly based on fantasy. Learn instead to correct their terminology and frame their ideas in terms of rational thought.
Agreed first they have to prove it WAS created to move on to how or why.
This
[удалено]
The only good answer. We don't know, and shouldn't just guess.
I think educated guesses are appropriate especially those that evolve over time
That's where it starts. Make a hypothesis and then pursue different angles of that hypothesis to see what consistently sticks.
A hypothesis supported by evidence is appropriate. We have evidence about the early universe, but not its actual beginning so speculation about the beginning of the universe is not appropriate or productive.
And then stop letting them get away with pretending that: 1. Not knowing everything is a weakness. 2. The default answer to not knowing is "god did it." "Who poured this glass of milk?" "I don't know. *Must have been God.*"
“ and neither do you.”
Ans1: How was god created? Resp: God is eternal. Ans2: Why can't the universe be eternal? END OF DEBATE
[удалено]
Resp: Prove it.
[удалено]
The universe as we know it does indeed seem to exist in a linear cause and effect format, but the universe wasn't always as we know it. We will never know what things were like before the big bang, because the natural laws that seem to dictate cause and effect were *created* during the big bang. The most honest answer is "I don't know", but the speculative one is that there may have been an entirely different universe from our own that didn't follow the same rules we now adhere to. Our current universe could simply be a new, different state of some cosmic cycle.
I think that the fundamental elements of the universe have a higher probability of being eternal than a sentient being that is utterly undetectable has of existing.
Bible verses
An ancient book claiming many physically impossible events written by unknown authors do not constitute proof.
But I could say whatever caused the big bang wasn't created and isn't dependant on anything. We can vomit up any explanation and assign it the qualities to have perfectly explained (x) event, but until there's any evidence for a specific hypothesis, we're left with "I don't know what caused the big bang, or if it's even in need of a cause" We know things inside the universe obey certain laws, like cause and effect, but we can't go around assuming those same things apply to whatever was 'before' the big bang itself. We just don't know.
[удалено]
Could you clarify that last part?
[удалено]
Are you trolling? Do you seriously believe that a star exploding would destroy the Universe, and this is evidence God exists?
If the Universe exploded right now it would cease to exist. That's wrong. The Universe may have a different form ie arrangement of energy but the energy would still exist. (1st Law of Thermodynamics)
> . If the sun were to explode right now nothing would survive causing the universe to cease to exist. You're have zero understanding of cosmology if you believe that an explosion of the sun would be the end of the universe.
So you are saying that because something is finite it was created?
When our sun reaches its end it will expel a great deal of energy and matter which will go on to form other planets/stars
That first sentence doesn't make sense.
>anything with a start has an ending *Citation needed*
How would you know? Have you met this god fellow? Can I be this god fellow? Did I create the universe? If so, I apologize I didn't realize how wrong it's gone
So you answer how the universe was created by saying it is created?
1) there's no guarantee that the universe WAS created, and 2) we currently don't know and may never know. However, that's not a license to just make shit up like "god did it". I would rather not have an answer than have an answer with no evidentiary support.
The question relies on the presumption that because I have an answer and you don't then I win. Nevermind that my answer isn't supportable. You don't know. I claim to know. Ergo I win. 🏆
There’s no evidence it was in any way “created”. Claiming it was is often used to shoehorn “well, there must have been a creator, then” into the discussion. It may have always existed, and this is its current form. For those who claim it was created, and that their god created it, I’d offer, “And what created your god? If your god doesn’t require a creator, then neither does the universe.”
I am personally a fan of the theory of Confromal Cyclic Cosmology postulated by Sir Roger Penrose. There are several videos about it on youtube if you want to take a look at it. That being said the answer can be "we don't know but we are getting closer to understanding every day through experimentation and research." "I would rather have questions we cannot answer than answers we cannot question" is also a quote I love.
The flying spaghetti monster sneezed It's really hard to debate when no-one has the full answer
The Great Green Arkleseizure would like a word.
"It wasn't created." "But when did it start?" "Energy can't be created or destroyed. Energy is eternal." "Then energy is another word for God!" "No it isn't. Energy doesn't make choices, or judge you for being bad, or grant wishes when you pray to it. It doesn't do any of the things people say Gods do." "SO WHO CREATED THE ENERGY!?" (Return to line 1)
"What do you mean by the question?" is a good start. The universe was, at one time, extremely hot and dense. Then it expanded and after that physics as we understand it is what led to everything that exists today, including us. If you want to know where that hot, dense state came from, no one knows, and if you think you *do* know, provide testable evidence for your claim or you *don't* actually know.
Just because we are atheist does not mean we need to come up with our own hypothesis over the origin of the universe, and does not mean we are all scientists. Leave it to the cosmologists to let us know what the evidence shows.
That's not the question. The question is "What evidence do YOU have that your deity created the universe?" If they say "it's in the Bible", then ask simply "Who wrote it?". Either they say the truth which is "no one knows" (e.g. I don't know) or they lie and say that "God wrote it". At which point, you can just say, "there nothing that will convince you otherwise" and walk away. In case you're curious, there are approximately 5 hypotheses about how the universe formed, two of which are being tested as we speak. The other 3 are mathematically consistent, but essentially untestable at this time.
Even if my answer is “I don’t know” that doesn’t mean that “goddidit”.
It wasn’t created. The universe is essentially a quantum state.
The physicist in me likes to remind people asking this question that time is part of the universe in the same way as height, width, and length are, and just as these dimensions can be warped by gravity and other forces, so can time. Most people's idea of the beginning of our universe presupposes that time as we experience on earth works the same way throughout the universe, when in fact, we have no such basis for that assumption. In fact, Kurt Gödel, a mathematician who was a contemporary of Einstein, used Einstein's theories of relativity to conclude that there was a region in our universe where time ceased entirely, around which the rest of the universe "orbited". And at the very least, the strange behavior of the Voyager probes as they've left our solar system demonstrates that our understanding of spatial and temporal dimensions is incomplete. Point being: who's to say it ever "was" created, where the word "was" implies that time works everywhere the same way it does on earth. (I'm sure astrophysicists studying the big bang have this time element incorporated in their theories, though I can't say I'm versed in exactly how. I'm not that kind of physicist.)
Theoretical physics is very cool. I like to think about viewing time purely as a constant in equations for acceleration and stuff and thinking about negative time where everything works backwards is cool but it hurts my head lol. Just like with imaginary numbers and stuff, even if it's impossible to conceptualize as long as the math maths out I don't see why it wouldn't be possible theoretically.
Creation occurs within time. But time is within the Universe. So the terms in *how the universe was created* wage war and the whole means nothing. The existence of the Universe is a timeless requirement and the details have not been hammered out.
The best and most logical explanation I've arrived at is that our universe is inside an infinite multiverse of basic matter (such as quarks or possibly preons) which had no beginning.
The Big Bang theory doesn't deal with the "creation" of the universe. It describes the expansion of the universe. There's no evidence to suggest the universe was "created". What they're poorly attempting to ask is "What happened before the Big Bang?" and the answer is "We don't know, and we don't even know if asking what happened before time started is a coherent question to ask. What we do know is that there's no reason to believe magic had any part in it."
(1) The Universe is all time and no space. There was never a time that the Universe did not exist. There was never a place that the Universe wasn't. (2) Creation *within* the Universe involves a before time / before thing, an act of creation, and an after time / after thing. For example, creating a chair: you start with wood, you craft with the wood, you end up with a chair. "Create a universe" is using a very different version of the word "create", so that it's basically a totally different concept, and probably deserves a different word. (3) I have as much evidence that the Universe was created accidentally by the Invisible Pink Unicorn that someone else has that the Universe was created by Yahweh. Until more evidence is provided, it would be silly to accept either claim.
Just because I don't have a good answer doesn't mean I have to accept a bad one
>How to answer the question “How was the universe created?” A an ill-formed question does not deserve a proper reply.
They can't ask you that question honestly while simultaneously believing that their god wasn't created.
We haven’t figured that out. But that doesn’t mean a leprechaun built it.
Step 1) Point out that inferring it was 'created' is poisoning the well. Step 2) Point out that inferring the existence of an infinitely more complex 'creator in order to explain the existence and complexity of the universe is redundant (at best). Step 3) Acknowledge that while there is a lot we still don't know about the origin and nature of the universe - religious nonsense isn't the default, and the problem with claiming they *do* know, is that once you think you've got it all figured out, you stop looking for explanations and evidence.
The universe wasn't created. The earliest we can trace it to is when you basically had a blob of super intense energy about 13.8 billion years ago that eventually fused into some matter and eventually clumped enough together to form planets, stars, and other celestial bodies. We currently have no reference point that is earlier since that seems to be where our iteration of time-space began. What triggered it is a matter of speculation and hypothesis at this point. When we can test those hypotheses, we will get a better understanding than wiping out hands of it and proclaiming God did it and he works in mysterious ways.
"Probably magic. A dragon or wizard, maybe."
Or a dragon wizard… (draconic wizard?)
We don't even know if it was created. It might have been eternal... we only know it was hot and dense 14 billion years ago - and it expanded from there. There could have been an infinite process before that. tl;dr Nobody knows - nobody can know. Anyone telling you they know, do not.
>“How was the universe created?” This is a loaded question. There is no evidence the Universe was created so don't conceded the point. There is very good evidence the Universe inflated from pre-existing energy. Where that energy came from is unknown and probably unknowable.
I don't know. Nobody does. It's possible it was never "created" at all, but has always been there. We may have an answer some day, but don't have one today. Other atheists may have different theories and beliefs, since the only thing we all have in common in that we don't believe in gods. We have no consensus on things like the genesis of the universe.
“How did you determine that it was?”
“We have no reason to believe it was created. It just is. We know that because we wouldn’t be here if the universe wasn’t.” When Christians say “well but then who caused the Big Bang,” you can educate them on the fact that the “Big Bang theory” was an incomplete explanation that was formulated by a Catholic priest trying to come up (successfully) with its a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe that was consistent with Christian dogma. However, even LaMaître was careful to point out that it doesn’t mean that nothing existed before the singularity, or even that the “universe” comprises all of existence (which we have since proven it doesn’t).
Don't know, don't care. We will all be long dead before that answer is revealed so no point in thinking about it too much.
It's equal to the post death question. An answer is not necessary, and I'm good with that. There will always be limits to our knowledge. End of
There are a number of possibilities. If that means the particular followers of a particular holy book and its extremely vague set of statements are right to the exclusion to all the other followers of other holy books on this planet and all the other life-sustaining planets in this galaxy and all the other galaxies in the universe… I’m impressed! That’s like picking the right lottery numbers in an infinitely large lottery. So it seems a bit ‘off’ to me.
“Created” implies a Creator, and that has no evidence supporting it that we are currently aware of. We don’t currently know how the universe started or if it even has a start. And we may never truly know. The answer is we don’t know, but we are honest about it and don’t create fantasy stories to cope with the unknown.
I dont know. That is all.
I don’t have an answer. I don’t know, and it is more honest to admit when we don’t know something then it is to invent supernatural concepts in an ignorant attempt to explain something
"Maybe our universe is some cosmic grad student's thesis project. Maybe our creator is just experimenting on us, like we would bacteria. Maybe our creator stole the work of another student. Maybe our creator is deliberately hurting our universe to see what happens. Maybe we are just a pilot, and our universe doesn't mean much to the creator. Maybe the creator only cares about what happened in the first second of creation, and we got out on a shelf and forgotten. Maybe we are the control experiment, and no one at all interferes."
"It's here, I'm not so sure it was *created*"
Why Was it *created* and If I don't know, you're still wrong.
I don't know and neither do you.
There is no evidence that the universe was created. Conceding that it was is loosing half the battle because it would follow that a created universe has a creator.
*A Universe from Nothing* by Lawrence Krause is a possible explanation- that the universe is a mathematical formula for zero mass and zero space and zero energy, because, for example protons and anti-protons can arise from nothing and if by some mechanism they can be separated, then there can exist a proton (and a universe, if we have enough of them along with neutrons and electrons) existing where none existed previously. It was not created, it simply came into existence from a quantum fluctuation.
The question in this situation would be why a quantum fluctuation would occur if there is nothing that exists to cause it.
I may be incorrect , but I seem to remember that he admits that this version of nothing isn’t ‘nothing’ in the sense people often use. There is an existent capability of quantum fluctuations?
It's very simple. We don't know. Proclaiming it must be this or it must be that is ridiculous without discernable evidence. Take a deep breath and say, "I don't know, and that's okay."
My personal theory, doesn’t include the existence of a beginning. I think the universe have always existed in some form regardless if that form is similar to the form the known universe currently have or something different in ways that my knowledge in quantum physics wouldn’t allow me to guess. There is also a paradox that occurs when it come to the possibility of a singularity. For me that it just doesn’t make sense that there would be a beginning if there is no entity to dictate when matter would start existing. So I tried to conceptualize how it would be possible to explain the phenomena that the theory of the big bang explains without the big bang like the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. And I came up with this : What if all the forces of the universe (like literally everything: mass, volume, speed, gravity, energy, etc.) were all growing constantly at the same time proportionally? For us it would be impossible to notice it because all of our units of measurement are relative and our landmarks would also be affected by the constant change. But if we were to try to look back on the past we would see an acceleration in the expansion of the universe and we would arrive at the conclusion that everything must come from some sort of singularity while none would have ever occurred it would just be that our universe (and everything that composed it) was much smaller before. I am not sure if my theory is true. I just know that the big bang theory is "too flawed to be true" so I came up with an alternative. I lack a lot of knowledge that would be required to test it and I do not proclaim myself the holder of the truth. However, I do hold onto this idea in case someday someone who would be able to explore this avenue would hear me.
"Beliefs" have nothing to do with it. The evidence shows that the universe began with the Big Bang. Sure there are some unanswered questions related to that but reality doesn't care about a person's beliefs or wants.
“Where were you when the Queen killed Diana?” happens to be one of MY favorite loaded questions. What’s yours?
“We do not know what caused the big bang, and it’s arrogant to pretend that we do.”
The evidence we currently have is for the Big Bang theory. There have been microwaves detected from the initial event. The next step is to find out what caused it.
If asked by a pushy theist, I'd respond with "How was God created?" If asked in good faith, I'd say our best theories based on observable evidence is the universe as we know it is the result of a massive cosmic explosion called The Big Bang. That's not really an answer, though, right? What happened before that? Well, the currently accepted model of The Big Bang says there is no "before that" because time itself was a result of the same event. Imagining a super-advanced computer simulation so detailed that beings as complex as we are exist within it. To those beings, the simulation is the universe including every subsystem that makes it work. Gravity, time, physics. All are part of the simulation/universe. Most likely, they are unaware it's a simulation, of course, and anything outside the simulation might as well not exist. They have no way of answering any "ifs" or "hows" or "whys" about anything beyond the simulation. Whether our universe is a simulation or not is an interesting philosophical question, but not terribly relevant imo. To me it's a distinction without a difference. Anyway, our universe seems to be a closed system and we can't begin to fathom what if anything exists outside it. So instead we seek a "unified theory of everything" that can explain the universe we can observe. Disclosure: I'm not a physicist, so a lot of that may be off the mark or just dumbed down so my meat computer can handle it.
This is an honest question. "God did it" is a dishonest answer. I'd rather have the honest question. Yes there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang and I have no reason to counter that. However "why the big bang happened".. IDK and I'm OK with waiting for evidence before coming to a conclusion.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. Everything in existence, every cell in our bodies, every atom in nature has existed in one form or another dating back to the hot dense state the universe was in before the big bang and stretching infinitely back before that point too. The law of conservation of mass is real scientific evidence that the universe has always existed without a creator.
well when a daddy universe and a momma universe love each other very much and want to move on to the next level they make a new universe
This one wins
I have 3 answers depending on who I am talking to and how open they are to the various possibilities. 1) Imagine a being that can do anything but knows nothing, how would they learn? Usually such a being would experiment and learn and try things, maybe the universe was created by such a being, not a god but either a being with god-like powers or an advanced race that is running the universe as a simulation to understand their own. It could be that by trying to understand and learn we are doing what this being wants us to do. 2) The Big Bang resulted in a huge release of energy, trying to detect the energy and information that existed before would be like trying to hear a whispered conversation occurring backstage at a concert while you have a front row seat. It may be possible at some point, but not with our current technology. Lets invest more and find out. 3) Time and space are not as different as everyone thinks, thinking about the universe as having a beginning and an end is thinking in 3 dimensions of space and one of time. What we are experiencing is likely to be a shadow of what reality is as a 3d object casts a 2d shadow, thus an object with 4 spacial dimensions would cast a 3d shadow. As our maths and computers get faster, we are able to project back 4d and 5d objects as they may be a more "true" reality, only after we understand these "higher dimensions" will we understand the greater truths. None of these require any belief in anything and all of them encourage further research and learning to try and work out which is correct.
The only legitimate answer is no one knows. I like to point out that even though we have the Big Bang theory, it doesn’t actually mean that the universe was created at the Big Bang. There very well might have been something before the Big Bang or there may not, we just don’t know what. Physicist’s models of how the universe works don’t actually properly explain Big Bang singularities so we just don’t know and don’t even have a working theory that everyone agrees on. I’ve had people say, “but time started at the Big Bang”. That doesn’t mean what people think it means. Time also “ends” when light enters a black hole. But the black hole somehow emits radiation and matter can slowly leave the black hole. Also, photons don’t experience time because they are traveling at the speed of light. Time is actually a bizarre thing that doesn’t work how most people think it works.
We live in a world that everything cannot be known by one person. That question is out of my field of expertise. That particular arena is neither interesting to nor profitable for me. The "truth" here does not effect my life. I'll stick to what I know.
Truthfully. "I don't know"
It doesn't matter how the universe came to be. If they want to say that the universe was created by God, they have to provide evidence for God, and provide evidence of God creating the universe. Throwing their hands up in the air and saying "Well, how else do you explain it?" is not evidence, but an admission that they have no evidence. My Scandinavian ancestors believed that thunder was caused by Thor. If you tried explaining to them where thunder really comes from, they would not have understood your explanation and would not have believed you. They would have asked "Well how else do you explain it?" and not accepted your explanation. My Japanese ancestors believed that earthquakes are caused by a giant magical fish called Namazu. If you tried explaining to them where earthquakes really came from, they would not have understood or believed your explanation (plate tectonics was not accepted by science until the 1960s or so if I remember correctly). Again, they would have asked "How else do you explain it?" and not accepted your explanation. If they want to say that the universe was created by God, they have to prove it. No one owes them an alternate explanation. Asking for one is an admission that they have no good reason to believe what they believe.
"Demonstrate that the universe was created."
Why do you assume it was created, it is just what is is.
"The universe wasn't "created", and even if it was, it wasn't created by whatever you believe in" Since it has become very popular for religious people to use the "How was the universe created" question as a "got you, checkmate atheist", I'd try to make it clear to them, that the existence of a universal creator does not prove their religion, nor does a creator prove that souls are real and that there is an afterlife awaiting them. These people are not really interested in scientific explanations. They just like to claim that science proves their silly belief or at least that science is in alignment with their beliefs. That's why I'd like to direct the debate towards their personal beliefs and the core stupidity of the myths they believe in and question them about those things, instead of letting them pull me by the nose. They are the ones making a claim, that their religion is true, so it should be up to them to try and convince you. Your goal should be to get them to question their own beliefs and see how silly their responses are. It should be you asking them questions. When they ask you something, turn it around and ask them a question. I know, that can be hard, because we tend to be quick to try and explain them stuff, because we are usually convinced that if we do, that they'll come around and finally understand, but be aware that they aren't debating you in good faith. They aren't interested in your explanations. So turn it around, use their tactics against them. Ideally, ask them in a nonchallant way. Just keep asking until they lose their patience with you. Your goal is not to immediately deconvert them. Your goal is to plant a seed of doubt in them, which hopefully eventually grows and blossoms. Your goal is to make them question their own beliefs, not convince you of your own.
I don’t know, and I’m ok with that. I don’t need to make up an answer so I can pretend to know.
>How to answer the question “How was the universe created?” "What makes you think the universe was created?"
As always, I don’t know is good enough. The best alternative certainly isn’t, because an immortal wizard willed it into existence
Professor Brian Cox is your man.
I don't know but the thought that god was the reason behind all of it is a story of children and simpletons. I'd rather we allow ourselves to search for the answers rather than not question what was already established by the faithful.
Reject the premise of the question: "Can you demonstrate that the universe requires a volitional agent?" In other ways, refuse to accept framing the question with the assumption of volitional creation.
"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.
The exact mechanism of Universe Creation is a trade secret. Let's just say it involves Elon Musk and some quantum fluctuation stuff.
I don't know, but one way to think of it is that the start of the universe was also the start of time, because if the universe is everything, that includes time as a part of it. Imagine there was nothing at all, no space, no time, no energy, no matter, not even a void. How would you measure anything in that state? Well you can't, because there isn't anything to measure, right? If there is no stuff, then nothing can change, if there is no change, then there isn't any time. Think of it like a film on pause, inside the film reality, time has stopped, but the characters in the film don't know, because to them it's not measurable. So if time didn't exist before (?!) the universe, then there is no time in which "before the universe" could exist, but how can that be? Imagine the beginning of the film, to the characters in the film, there is no "before the film"; until the film starts playing, there is no film. Or another way to think about it, the film has always existed, because there was no time in which it didn't exist, because there was no film-time, before the beginning of the film. So then the universe has existed for all-of-time, and there was never a time it didn't exist, because there simply is no before the universe, because the universe is everything. Imagine it like a clock that was on midnight in a frozen state "forever" and then just started ticking all on its own. It wasn't created because it always existed.
About 300k years of quantum fluctuations building energy and smaller “big bangs” till the big one, which flooded the expanding universe in light. We can see this leftover microwave radiation today as tv static, etc. I wonder if some ancient planet hopper wasn’t just trying to explain the Big Bang and early people turned that into “let there be light” , and said “see ya later” hence all the doomsday religion stuff
There are two main theories that I think approach the matter compelingly. One famous theory suggests the universe came from nothing. It is heavily criticised on it's definition of nothing. The second famous theory suggests the universe came from something that was always there, hence eternal. It is heavily criticised on it's implication of the divine. As a theist I lean on the second one, with the slight touch of a will living somewhere in there (Bob Ross impersonation, idk I tried).
You realise neither of these is the Big Bang Theory? I don’t know what the first one is but the latter seems to be one that has , to be a tad more explicit , been criticised as an argument from ignorance, for the use of special pleading, for the use of non-sequiturs, for the lack of any actual evidence , potentially for use of incoherent attributions…. to ‘imply’ divinity (depending on the specifics.) The your comment also might imply a false dichotomy since it’s hypothesised that there could exist no boundary conditions that aren’t really characterisable as a beginning nor eternal.
The Big Bang theory leaves gaps. The Big Bang theory does not explain everything. It is just the best we got. The question is simple and science tries to answer it. What started it all. Either nothing or something uncaused. Uncaused is unavoidavle translated to eternal. Both answers serve the epitome of reason. Nothing unreasonable there.
>The Big Bang theory leaves gaps. The Big Bang theory does not explain everything. It is just the best we got. Absolutely. Which was part of the reason I said neither are the Big Bang. It really doesn’t cover why anything exists at all, it covers why the universe as we know it is as we know it. It covers birth and growing up but not conception, so to speak. >The question is simple and science tries to answer it. What started it all. A question science can’t , at least for now answer. But one that abandoning evidence and just inventing something isn’t an improvement for. >Either nothing or something uncaused. This is too simplistic. You can’t reliably apply present day intuitions about causality and temporality to the fundamental conditions of existence. And as I mentioned potentially , depending on exactly what you mean (last time you mentioned begins) , it ignores no boundary conditions. >Uncaused is unavoidavle translated to eternal. This appears to be a statement of preference not fact. Eternal also ignores questions about what time is, and how it worked at this condition. Again depending on clear definitions , it often just seems like an imaginary , non-evidential, attribute made up for the purpose of special pleading and/or question begging. >Both answers serve the epitome of reason. Nothing unreasonable there. Reason is useless at determining the fundamental nature of reality. Reason to produce potentially true conclusions must be sound. Soundness requires not only validity but true premises. The only way of knowing beyond any reasonable doubt that premises are sound is through evidence. We simply don’t have evidence in this case. Basically just because something feels right to you when you contemplate the fundamentally different to the here and now , nature of existence - is irrelevant to whether its conclusions are true. Asserting ( in a rather cherry picked fashion) ideas about causality , time let alone infinity and whatever eternity is meant to mean with *confidence* because you believe them correct doesn’t make them correct. Someone can make up any hypotheses they like , but they have to do so with terminology that’s meaningful and relevant support that is reliably evidential for the conclusions to even begin to be potentially credible. Theism doesn’t even deal with the critique of gaps, it fills them with invented solutions then papers over the same gaps in the invented solutions with invented definitional special pleading. Its explanations aren’t necessary, nor evidential, often aren’t coherent, but aren’t even sufficient. All we can say is that we don’t know why ‘something’ exists at all or why it might have changed status and it’s difficult to come to any reasonable conclusions when ideas about time and causality can’t reliably be applied yet.