Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who made the universe
01-13-2010, 06:21 AM
Post: #1
Who made the universe
Aristotole believed that the universe was eternal. As most of us have heard the words the Big Bang, I think most no longer believe that to be the case.

So, if universe is not eternal and say 13 billion years old, who made it?

Did the blind physical laws make it? Did Yahweh, God the Father or Allah, the Holy Ghost or Jesus Christ, or some other god make it?

Just curious
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 06:54 AM
Post: #2
RE: Who made the universe
(01-13-2010 06:21 AM)Ahmadi Wrote:  Aristotole believed that the universe was eternal. As most of us have heard the words the Big Bang, I think most no longer believe that to be the case.

So, if universe is not eternal and say 13 billion years old, who made it?

Did the blind physical laws make it? Did Yahweh, God the Father or Allah, the Holy Ghost or Jesus Christ, or some other god make it?

Just curious

There are around a hundred billion stars in each of a hunded billion galaxies in the visible universe. We do not know how much of the universe we cannot see because the light has not had time to reach us. It may be infinite.

We are one species living on part of the surface of one planet revolving around one star. We have been around in our present form perhaps a hundred thousand years, compared to the 13 billion year age of the universe. The portion of the universe that we are capable of inhabitating is vanishingly small.

When viewed at a larger or smaller scale than we are used to, the universe appears very very different from our impression of it. Scientists speculate that there are many universes that are themselves very different from this one.

Whatever may be responsible for the existence and nature of the universe(s), it does not appear that we are of any noticeable importance in the grand scheme of things.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 10:40 AM
Post: #3
RE: Who made the universe
Thank you Parousia for your enlightening comments. So you believe in Copernican hypothesis. Let me link an article from Google-knol here that argues the converse.

Unlike the 19th century physics the twentieth century physics demands that there aught to be a creator of this universe. The concept of 'multiverse,' may be confabulation of atheist scientists to get out of this difficulty. Here is a clear and lucid challenge to Professor Richard Dawkins in which carbon is used as a general proxy for physics. The article references several recent works. Here is the link to the article:

http://knol.google.com/k/a-challenge-for...come-from#

My hope is to also hear from those who think that the universe was created, as to what role God the Father, the Holy Ghost or Jesus Christ had in it? Are we to think of three creators or only one?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 10:54 AM
Post: #4
RE: Who made the universe
(01-13-2010 10:40 AM)Ahmadi Wrote:  ...My hope is to also hear from those who think that the universe was created, as to what role God the Father, the Holy Ghost or Jesus Christ had in it? Are we to think of three creators or only one?

This appears to be a question regarding the Trinity, since it seems hardly worth mentioning that Christians believe that God created all that exists.

For Christians, there is one God in whom an eternal, perichoretic relationship of three Divine persons graciously provides grounding for all existence and all love.

http://www.biblicaltraining.org/ --- http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 12:16 PM (This post was last modified: 01-13-2010 12:26 PM by Parousia.)
Post: #5
RE: Who made the universe
(01-13-2010 10:40 AM)Ahmadi Wrote:  Thank you Parousia for your enlightening comments. So you believe in Copernican hypothesis. Let me link an article from Google-knol here that argues the converse.

The Copernican hypothesis simply states that the planets revolve about the sun as opposed to everything revolving around the earth. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. Those of a less scientific bent like to call everything that points to earth and mankind in particular as not being the center and purpose of the universe ‘the Copernican hypothesis’. What then is the non-Copernican hypothesis? That the universe revolves around the earth? The article you linked of course does not use the term Copernican.

(01-13-2010 10:40 AM)Ahmadi Wrote:  Unlike the 19th century physics the twentieth century physics demands that there aught to be a creator of this universe. The concept of 'multiverse,' may be confabulation of atheist scientists to get out of this difficulty.

Theoretical physicists have constructed ‘toy universes’, mathematical models of universes with different laws, parameters and initial conditions than our universe. The ‘toy universes’ have been shown to be internally consistent. That is, this is not the only possible universe.

The notion of God assumes infinite perfection. For God to have been able to create something and not have created would mean that God has not fulfilled his entire potential and is therefore less than perfect. It is clear from this that God must have created all possible universes. The multi-verse is not a “confabulation of atheists”, but a theological necessity.

We may also consider it from the viewpoint of mathematical logic. While developing set theory – the foundation underlying all mathematics and logic – 19th century mathematician Georg Cantor developed a means of rigorously dealing with the concept of infinity. After demonstrating that from any given set (even an infinite one) a larger set can be created, Cantor realized that it is impossible to talk consistently about the set of all sets. A larger set could be created from it, contradicting the assumption that it was the set of all sets. (Mathematicians talk about the class of all sets and concede that it lies beyond the reach of logic.)

Cantor believed that the class of all sets, the Absolute Infinite as he called it, was in fact God, the source of all possibilities. One interesting property of the Absolute Infinite is the Reflection Principle, that anything we can say about it is necessarily less than what it really is. Theologians and mystics alike would agree that this is true of God.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason tells us that there must be a definite reason for anything definite. We live in a definite universe. If this is in fact the only one out of all possibilities, there must have been some pre-existing constraint on God. Otherwise there is no reason for exactly this definite universe and the Principle of Sufficient Reason is violated. But putting a constraint on what God can do, other than non-contradiction, violates the infinite perfection of God.

Metaphysics, mathematics, logic: all argue for a multi-verse.

(01-13-2010 10:40 AM)Ahmadi Wrote:  Here is a clear and lucid challenge to Professor Richard Dawkins in which carbon is used as a general proxy for physics. The article references several recent works.

I happen to disagree with Dawkins’ notion that a complex universe requires a complex creator. Complexity assumes specificity. Something that is complex is difficult to describe because the description has to specify which of numerous possibilities it includes to the exclusion of all others. An infinite multi-verse includes all possibilities and excludes none. Its description is simplicity itself: what can be, is. Each universe is a set of laws, parameters and initial conditions and the extrapolation of the ramifications of those things. Cantor’s God includes and transcends all universe-sets.

In the article, the description of the formation of carbon as the near simultaneous collisions of three helium atoms (aka alpha particles) is correct as far as it goes. What is not mentioned is that the conditions for this exist big time in the heart of a star becoming a Type II supernova. This is also the source of many of the elements heavier than carbon and all of the elements heavier than iron. A Type II supernova is also an ideal mechanism for distributing these elements and for triggering the collapse of gas/dust cloud into star systems, some of which will form planets. The presence of carbon in conditions otherwise suitable for life formation is no mystery.

Carbon has very interesting properties. Its penchant for forming when three helium atoms collide as well its chemical properties are the result of the same fine tuning of the laws of this universe. But we see that life is relatively rare in the universe. At most a small proportion of stars will support it. We could invoke a form of the Anthropic Principle and say that of course we live in a universe capable of supporting life. Duh!

But there is another way of looking at that.

Black holes are able to form from large mass accretions despite the counter force provided by the heat generated by internal fusion. This is because the fine tuning of the weak nuclear force allows neutrinos to carry energy out of the star or other large mass without heating the layers they pass through. It is exactly this fine tuning that gives carbon its interesting properties.

Steven Hawking has discussed the formation of other universes via black holes. A universe that produces carbon as we know it is one that is tuned to create black holes and thus other universes. A universe that produces interesting carbon is one that will spawn other universes. It is turning out that our universe has lots of black holes. There is for instance a super-massive one at the heart of every galaxy. It may be that we live in a type of universe that is quite common in the scheme of things. And life – a teensy component of the universe compared to black holes - may simply be an accidental byproduct of the universes going forth and multiplying.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 12:53 PM
Post: #6
RE: Who made the universe
Does Dawkins really not believe in a complex universe? I always thought that by "complex" he meant "complex enough to require a creator," in which case we are not in a complex universe. But simply complex as in complicated? Sure, we are in a very complicated universe.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 01:14 PM
Post: #7
RE: Who made the universe
(01-13-2010 12:53 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  Does Dawkins really not believe in a complex universe? I always thought that by "complex" he meant "complex enough to require a creator," in which case we are not in a complex universe. But simply complex as in complicated? Sure, we are in a very complicated universe.

Dawkins states (to oversimplify it) that a complex result requires an even more complex cause. (Or at least that is how it comes across. Maybe I have it wrong.) But if that were the case, why would he believe in evolution? If it is not the case, why does he use it as an argument against God?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 01:17 PM
Post: #8
RE: Who made the universe
I think when he argues that, he's arguing it tongue-in-cheek from the creationist argument. I.e., entropy means nothing more complex can be made (which is based on a misunderstanding of entropy,) and thus complexity can only come from greater complexity. But even using that logic, god makes no sense, as Dawkins points out.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 01:36 PM
Post: #9
RE: Who made the universe
(01-13-2010 06:54 AM)Parousia Wrote:  ...it does not appear that we are of any noticeable importance in the grand scheme of things.

I would be more inclined to see the force of your argument if it could be shown that intelligent life exists anywhere else in the universe. At present, there is no evidence for such (and here I am reminded of GT's ubiquitous unicorns and fairies) and therefore in my mind the magnitude of the only known universe hints that humans are quite special to the Creator.

http://www.biblicaltraining.org/ --- http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 01:47 PM
Post: #10
RE: Who made the universe
(01-13-2010 01:36 PM)Stereophonic Wrote:  
(01-13-2010 06:54 AM)Parousia Wrote:  ...it does not appear that we are of any noticeable importance in the grand scheme of things.

I would be more inclined to see the force of your argument if it could be shown that intelligent life exists anywhere else in the universe. At present, there is no evidence for such (and here I am reminded of GT's ubiquitous unicorns and fairies) and therefore in my mind the magnitude of the only known universe hints that humans are quite special to the Creator.

Whereas to my mind, the apparent absence of intelligent life except in a tiny cubbyhole of space and time in a utterly vast universe would seem to be an argument for life as an extremely rare accidental byproduct of an uncaring cosmos. With ten thousand billion billion stars in the visible universe, and who knows how many beyond the light horizon, weird accidents can and almost certainly must happen.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)