Creation of the Universe

[David M.]

Well, this topic has been brought up in several places and I thought
it would be a welcome addition to the scientific topics we have. I
think that as a group though we can agree that this should be
scientific and we should not argue about religious views of this,
although I don't think this should be an issue. For all purposes,
let's just say for the religious here like me that these are
scientific theories about how God could have created the universe. Or
for the laughing atheists right now simply the creation of the
universe.

[Andrew Towle]

Well, we kind of have to relate religion to the creation of the universe because part of religion talks about the creation of the universe.

--
Andy T.

[David Reich]

No, you don't.  I like this idea, a religion-free, scientific discussion.  Feel free to bring religion up, but "I belive it, I have faith"  won't fly in this topic.  Unless you think you've found hard scientific proof of the FSM, don't bring it up here - and if you have, there are better places to put it anyway.   For the religious, you can see this as hypothetical speculation on how a universe might get started without god, contrary to what you know of course.  Hypothetical. 

Anyway, I don't actually have much of any material to contribute to this yet.  I'll do a bit of reading on it, but I don't know much now.

[Ahmed]

In the name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

I think religion and science go side by side.....anywho, this is what
i wrote on a previous thread...just bought it here because, well, i
really have nothing else to offer on this topic lol >.>

We theorize through modern science and technology in the most logical
theory of the big bang, of how the universe, time and space, came into
existence. I think we can all agree that the universe is huge in size
and quite complex. We can’t assume the universe just suddenly came
into existence by chance. Why? For example, if you take all the pieces
of a car (all the screws and whatnot) and you throw them all up in the
air, would it come down as a built car? How about if you did it for a
never ending time, would it make a difference? Logically, the answer
is no. So how can we expect such a vast universe to just come into
existence all of a sudden out of chance? It doesn’t make sense.
Therefore, we must acknowledge that there is something or someone
behind the creation of the universe as it could not have just happened
on its own by chance. Now you might ask who created that someone/
something, well that’s the thing, that someone (God) was not created,
he was just there. This is something our minds cannot comprehend
naturally

On May 1, 10:42 am, Andrew Towle <andytol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, we kind of have to relate religion to the creation of the universe
> because part of religion talks about the creation of the universe.
>

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

EXACTLY!

Why can't God just create the Big Bang? Why can't it be that he created enough matter in the universe? What caused it? Why can't God and Science coexist? The reason that they can't coexist is because of the Bible's text and science's undying pursuit to deny and prove the Bible.

Well, the Big-Bang theory has something to do with anti-matter, right?

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

Yeah thats what I've thought about too, Thuy, God creating the universe. Everyone, tonight watch the Creation of the Universe with Stephen Hawking on Discovery channel at 9:00 eastern/8:00 central. Then we can discuss it afterwards.

--
Andy T.

[Andrew Towle]

GO AHMED! WOOT! except for the part about science and religion coexisting together

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Well, I didn't exactly say that God created the universe but the Big Bang. I might not watch that since I got a lot of homework tonight. Maybe my dad will watch that so I will just listen in.

Cheers to Television!

[David Reich]

First, I'll try to watch that but I might not have time.  A lot of homework and all that.  Anyway, Ahmed, I disagree with one of your points.  Your 'car' analogy.  I don't think you quite understand the implications of 'infinity'.  In fact, assuming that every time you threw parts into the air you'd randomize which set of parts you used (analogous to different laws of physics/physical constants that could possibly create a universe).  If you did this infinite times, you'd wind up, eventually, getting a car.  Assuming there's ANY chance of a given outcome from a procedure, given infinite trials that outcome will eventually occor.  With the car analogy, you'd get a 'random' heap of parts most times, but eventually a car - also eventually a lawnmower, or a scale model town, or a sculpture - each, in the analogy, a different possible universe. 

This doesn't mean, of course, that you're wrong.  There's absolutely no proof against a god the created the universe, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so you might very well be right.  The problem is, scientifically, the universe'll work the same way no matter if you believe a God created it or not, so it's more efficient, scientifically, to assume not.

(also, nice to see you on here, hope you enjoy your stay here at the Society of Scientific and Philosophic Communication.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Strange though, I was really thinking the same thing.

Now does that mean that this universe wasn't first? There was something before us? And we were dismantled once the universe is destroyed? Once we are destroyed, are we thrown in the air again to repeat the cycle?

Cheers
(I thought SSPC was other things like Super Secret Philosopher's Club or Society of Scientists, Philosophers and Crazies...ect?)

[David Reich]

Thuy, that could be possible - but again, it's outside the role of science and into that of religion.  Feel free to discuss it, and be religious, just know that, and don't think you're making any sort of scientific theory.  Speculate wildly all you want though. 

(It does.  Etc.)

[Ahmed]

I don't know, i find it a bit hard to believe that just throwing
things into the air, eventually it will turn into a car. that sounds
ridiculas to me i mean a car with all its knots and parts. It doesn't
seem logical to me but hey, you could be on to something i don't
really have any other examples to get the convo going at the moment
tho lol.....

[Andrew Towle]

I fyou threw all the parts needed to make a car into the air infinite times, it would never make a car. It's impossible. When we make cars, we use muscle power and factory to push, twist,screw,nail, glue, and attach all of the parts together. When these parts are in the air, there's no other force acting on them, except gravity, to put the parts together. So, it's impossible.

 

Just sayin'.

--
Andy T.

[dew96 (saucy)]

No, its not. We're talking INFINITY. Just think about that. It means that 1 in infinite times we had random particles in a certain space it would be a car. INFINITY. That means that there is no end! If it failed, then we would simply continue to another combination of particles. The combinations would never end. At some point in infinite possibilities it would have to be a car. In fact, just because its infinite, you could have every type of car. Maybe a giant Cheeto? A gum ball that when chewed explodes and reveals a queen-sized mattress? The fact that there is an never ending amount of possibilities makes it so that there would at some point be a car.

[Andrew Towle]

It's impossible! When a car is made, pressures are put on things that can't just be made in mid-air only by gravity. Things are squeezed together and screwed into each other that only gravity can't do. It's impossible.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Is it really impossible if GOD did it?

Now rather than a car, how about some clay? The clay molds into whatever when thrown into the air. Is that a better analogy?

ChEeRs?

[Paul Gully]

a car is just one of an almost infint number of possible combinations of the parts that make it up. since there are less then an infinite number of possibilites (finite space, etc) and an infinte time, all combinations happen once. its just a principal of chance. if your going to make 'mathematical' arguments, understand the math.

same thing goes with clay, and all other things, really

[Andrew Towle]

No, frankly its not.

 

 

I propose a toast. (bad humor)

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

If you propose a toast, then I propose a baguette. A baguette is made the same way toast is but it is different, isn't it? Then baguette for all!!

Cheers

[Michael Oppenheimer]

This isn't helpful. Andrew, that's a little too frank. Tell us why you think that.

As for my opinion, they could form a car. They could also form half of a car (which would also be a universe), or the other half (ditto). If a metal pipe is thrown from an airplay over 9000!!!!! feet in the air, when it reaches it's terminal velocity it will be able to apply enough force to work.

[Paul Gully]

Andrew, this is called the cosmological argument. also what you just did ('No, Frankly its not') is outright rejection, without reason.  just because you cant comprehend it doesn't mean you can reject it. 

now, the problem with the cosmological argument is that it assumes a few things. firstly, it assumes that all things need a creator. there are plenty of things that dont need creators, rocks, etc. that can be applied to everything in the universe (and more than likely the universe itself). things like cars are created often because systems have developed (life) which have developed further (animals, mammals, humans, industry, etc.) until they are the recognizable things we know of today. we interact with them differently than were they just systems (mainly because we ourselves are also part of that same system), but thats all they are. it simply doesn't need a god to make sense. 

also, if you say ALL things need someone to start it, who started god?

[David Reich]

Paul's continuation of your argument is quite valid, although not completely the most elegant way to do this.  The parts thrown in the air would make a car, if repeated enough.  One of the screws, eventually, would happen to have been thrown with just the right velocity, direction, force, spin, etc that it would screw in while in midair.  It's incredibly unlikely - but possible.  Perhaps a nail was thrown up earlier - and far, far higher - than the two pieces it's meant to nail together, and fall on them from much higher up, with enough force to go through.  And so on. 

Again, though, I don't think either side here can be at all certain.  My argument there hasn't proven that there isn't a god, it's just proven (poorly and by analogy) that there doesn't have to be.  Of course, you don't have any positive evidence proving there is a god either.  Now, I'm open to inconclusive arguments meant to change what I veiw as the probability of a god, but there can be no proof.

I can't prove there isn't a god:  assuming I find a conclusive, unifying theory of everything, that has no room for any god in it, you could just say, "That's what God wants you to think, it's part of the grand magnificence of His creation"
You can't prove there is one:  assume you find, inscribed in a solid, glowy, white, completely unbreakable stone, "THERE IS A GOD", I could just say "It's just a coincidence, that was naturally formed some way I don't understand"

[Andrew Towle]

Ok. I see what ya'll are saying. NO NEED TO GANG UP ON THE LITTLE KID!

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Oh really? I BET I'M SMALLER THAN YOU ARE!

Cheers

[Ahmed]

In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, Most Merciful
If there is a creation, there has to be a creator simple as that. Now
for original creator, i dont think our minds can comprehend the
creator, of a being that did not need to be created. Do you think that
we were created from nothing or we created ourselves? Both those
statements dont make sence. Therefore,there has to be a creator
because there is creation (us, the world, universe, everything).

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Ahmed, I agree that if there is creation, there has to be a creator. However, that is assuming that creation is the way things were formed. I believe in the Big Bang Theory, as I'm sure David and Paul do, and therefore render your creation argument invalid.

[Andrew Towle]

You know, everyone here thinks everyone else's arguement is 'invalid'. that's why its called an argument. And also, I don't mean to be rude, but Ahmed, do you have to say the thing about O merciful and stuff at the beginning of every post?

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <doomw...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ahmed, I agree that if there is creation, there has to be a creator. However, that is assuming that creation is the way things were formed. I believe in the Big Bang Theory, as I'm sure David and Paul do, and therefore render your creation argument invalid.

--
Andy T.

[David Reich]

the argument about if the universe is a creation is really semantics, I think.  If, for example, I make a computer program to randomly generate a picture by placing random pixels, and it makes a beautiful artwork, is that picture a creation?  You could argue that it is, because I wrote the program - but what if asteroids randomly hitting the moon made an even better picture on it?  That's entirely possible, and given infinite trials, it would happen. 

Also, Arguments arn't necessarily invalid - I would challenge anyone to call cogito ergo sum that.  Of course, Michael, I'm not sure I entirely understand how the big bang removes any value form his argument - why couldn't there be a God that created the big bang, and started each and every fundamental particle off in such a way that it would eventually form the universe we have today?

[Andrew Towle]

Better is only a matter of opinion.

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:32 PM, David Reich <elli...@gmail.com> wrote:

the argument about if the universe is a creation is really semantics, I think.  If, for example, I make a computer program to randomly generate a picture by placing random pixels, and it makes a beautiful artwork, is that picture a creation?  You could argue that it is, because I wrote the program - but what if asteroids randomly hitting the moon made an even better picture on it?  That's entirely possible, and given infinite trials, it would happen. 

Also, Arguments arn't necessarily invalid - I would challenge anyone to call cogito ergo sum that.  Of course, Michael, I'm not sure I entirely understand how the big bang removes any value form his argument - why couldn't there be a God that created the big bang, and started each and every fundamental particle off in such a way that it would eventually form the universe we have today?

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

i know im responding for Michael, but i've disputed that point before, David. ill find it, i think it was in the religion thing.

also, that doesn't make his point any less relevant, andrew. better is completely irrelevant ananthopically anyway, which is (i think, and david may agree with me) the most useful way to approach this stuff.

[Ahmed]

I say In the name of God, the Most Beneficent, Most Merciful whenever
i try to make a point for that is what the prophets of God had done
and to be the best of God's creation, we should follow those who are
the best of creation. It is also to acknowledge that the information
that i have is not my opinion but rather it it is what i have learned
in the Qur'an and Sunnah (teachings of Muhammad PBUH). It is a way of
saying thanks to God who has given me this knowledge so that i may
share and discuss. I hope you are not angry with me saying this, for
there is no reason to be. :)

> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Michael Oppenheimer

> <doomwolf...@gmail.com>wrote:

[Ahmed]

I was trying to make that point thanks. I was saying that....meteors
created the picture but who created the meteor? and who created the
thing that created the meteor? going down to the particle of, where
did all this come from? Nothing cant create something. You cannot
create yourself. Nothing can't become something.

On May 3, 5:32 pm, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the argument about if the universe is a creation is really semantics, I
> think.  If, for example, I make a computer program to randomly generate a
> picture by placing random pixels, and it makes a beautiful artwork, is that
> picture a creation?  You could argue that it is, because I wrote the program
> - but what if asteroids randomly hitting the moon made an even better
> picture on it?  That's entirely possible, and given infinite trials, it
> would happen.
>
> Also, Arguments arn't necessarily invalid - I would challenge anyone to call

> * cogito ergo sum *that.  Of course, Michael, I'm not sure I entirely

[David Reich]

We're not necessarily saying nothing does become something - You're entirely right in that.  We don't know where the universe came from.  It might have been around forever, there might be a creator (which does bring up the question of where the creator came from), or there might be some other cause.  The thing is, we don't know - we can't know, yet - for certain what caused the universe, and there's no real reason to believe it was a god of any sort, much less YHWH.

[Ahmed]

I thought the big bang theory was that there was once nothing and
then, BANG! creating time and space and whatnot. I thought that was
what scientists thought to be the most logical explanation of the
creation of the universe? *thought* yes i know. but we must use our
logic to think of how things happend because we do not know and all we
have is logic.

> > > the universe we have today?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Andrew Towle]

Well if you became a Christian, you could go to heaven and ask God.

--
Andy T.

[Andrew Towle]

Yes! That's what we were made to be like after Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden!

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

its not just 'BANG', its not that at all actually. most people dont have quite as much of an idea of these things as they think.

basically, scientist can see that the universe is expanding outward. everything is moving away from everything else. this means that if you turned time 'backwards' you would see everything coming towards one central point.  this makes people think that it almost definitely had a beginning (because some people claim it was infinite in both directions), and there is a lot of theoretical evidence as to what could have created the initial 'boom' that doesn't involve a god. Mathematicians have worked out a system (similar to what you may know of as string theory, called M theory) where objects in a truly infinite universe (meaning its both infinite in size and time, although technically time is irrelevant here) 'collided' to create the big bang. 

[Ahmed]

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
You know, in the Qur'an it says 51:47 'AND IT IS We who have built the
universe [30] with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are
steadily expanding it.' and i remind you that this was written about
1400 years ago (and it has not been changed) and you just said
yourself that the universe is constantly expanding~for it has been
proven to be true recently (recent i mean in the past 100 years-idk
exactly when). Take a look at what else the Qur'an said 1400 years
ago...:
http://tv.muxlim.com/video/2vzTQ3OUyZF/SCIENTIFIC-MIRACLES-OF-THE-QURAN/
http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

[David Reich]

Ok, Ahmed, I accept that a document written 1400 years ago can be _interpreted_ to predict later scientific advances.  That is not inherently special - ask nostradamus.  I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not saying that the Qu'ran wasn't divinely guided - just that that's insufficient evidence to say that it is.  A lot of the miracles on that page are fairly loose interpretations - the one about cloning, for example, could also be interpreted simply as surgery, or as magical alchemy.  "I swear by... the dawn when it breathes in" isn't really a prediction of photosynthesis, it could also simply be referring to animals waking up and their breath quickening.  Now, if you had something closer to "I swear by the light which enters leaves, and alongside C02 gas and water drawn from the roots, creates glucose, and expels diatomic oxygen, while the glucose is later transformed to adenosine-triphosphate, by which the plant and all life exists", then I might be more convinced.

[Ahmed]

:) well said, as a lot of the text is pretty badly referenced.
However, please do take a look at the video as it does make a loto f
sense. I totally agree with you on the text though as i myself dont
really see much of that being devine revelation. THe video does give
actual proof. I also have a book on it, if you wish to read it, it
lists the clear Qur'an scientific miracles (that you will not have any
misunderstanding or anything whatsoever) and what actual scientists
thought about said revelation. I can give it to you or i can just post
it on the message board at HB for you if you want. Furthermore, there
is the video :P. also, what do you think of the one i just gave you,
the one where it said 'we are constantly expanding it.' I mean, Arabic
is not a dead language, you can go to a arabic/english language
specialist and he will read the arabic and tell you in english. THe
original arabic remains and that is what it says.

[David Reich]

1.  I will watch that video, assuming it's not too long, but first:

2.  The quote you gave about 'constantly expanding [the universe]' is given by http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/noble/nobe051.htm as "...We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof."  Which is slightly less obviously about red shift, and could still be called a 'lucky guess', particularly when it's followed by, (51:48) "And We have spread out the earth, how Excellent Spreader (thereof) are We!".  What's that talking about?  

As for the book, I've got a _lot_ of stuff to read right now.  I actually do have a plan to read the holy books, but it'll take a while - I'm up to.. 2/3 through genesis now.  I'll read a lot more over the summer though. 

[David Reich]

Ok, I've watched about half of the video, up to 25 minutes in.  I've noticed a few problems though - It goes on for a while about the 7 layers of the atmosphere, as called 7 parts of heaven in the Qu'ran.  That's not entirely accurate.  According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Principal_layers, the earth could have anywhere between 5 and 9 layers, depending on how you count.  It's hardly the precise 7 described in the Qu'ran.

One thing I am rather interested by is the assertion that all heavenly bodies are in motion.  Galileo and the church had a bit of a fiasco over that, and I'm impressed by the Qu'ran getting it right.  The thing is, though, that I like about this - I't not enough to change my mind and convince me of the entirety of Islam, there are just too many other claims made that would also have to be supported. On the other hand, it reaffirms your faith to have that sort of thing in it.  A win for all of us!  except the other monotheists.  Go try to convert them next (jk).

[Ahmed]

Some of the translations are a bit different from each other (figues).
but the video shows the actual meaning of the arabic words, as you
will figure out in some later parts of the video. If you need a Qur'an
i can give you one to keep. 51:48 means that it's not all mountains,
it has plains so we can build,surivive, whatnot. Look at other
planets...maybe that will help.

On May 3, 8:17 pm, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.  I will watch that video, assuming it's not too long, but first:
>
> 2.  The quote you gave about 'constantly expanding [the universe]' is given

> byhttp://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/noble/nobe051.htmas "...We

[Ahmed]

http://quranexplorer.com/Quran/Default.aspx
this is actualy a good link for Qur'an transliteration. make sure the
translation is on english-Pickthal as it is one of the easiest and
very accurate translations.

> > through genesis now.  I'll read a lot more over the summer though.- Hide quoted text -

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Going back to the whole 'The Qua-ran predicted scientific "miracles"' If I say here that in over 9000 years, a large man will send his son from a blue planet to a green planet then back, I might be right. In fact, it's extremely probable that it will happen eventually. But that's just probability. That doesn't mean that I predicted it, and it is a miracle (or whatever you want to call it) it just means that I said something that happened to be recorded and then happened to come true. A lot of what I read from the Qua-ran is very general and at one point it says something to the effect of 'Someone will lie then get burnt on a fire.' Eventually something like that is bound to happen. David, I don't think that Nostradamus is a fair comparison because he was way more specific. Also, he used science to predict his (I think, I don't know very much about him) whereas the Qua-ran is out of nowhere.

P.S. I apologise if I offend you Ahmed.

P.P.S. I use ' ' as loose quotations.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Doesn't this all fit inside the "Religion" discussion? Or did it move here since the King and Tyrant close the former discussion?

Cheers to the King and Tyrant!