The question of something: created or was just there?

[The Vegan Marxist]

What do people tend to believe in: that whatever created everything has a creator as well, or that whatever was before the Big Bang was just there and had no creator?

Obviously, if we were to go by the notion of there being a creator, and each thing has its own creator, this would then turn into a never-ending notion of creation. Which, quite frankly, is illogical. So even if there was a long line of one creating another, we'd eventually have to come to an end point of something just being there and having no creator whatsoever.

So, to answer my own question, I'd say whatever created everything was just there (and I don't mean God! :rolleyes: ). How about everyone else?

[Reznov]

You have a crap load of posts man, you have over 4,000. Have you ever though about taking a day off?

That said, there is no creator. It is easier to just accept that we were born and we create and try to live our lives happily.

Trying to think anything more will just make you crazy imo.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You have a crap load of posts man, you have over 4,000. Have you ever though about taking a day off?

That said, there is no creator. It is easier to just accept that we were born and we create and try to live our lives happily.

Trying to think anything more will just make you crazy imo.

Today was my day off from everything else. :D These last few months haven't posted much at all, but last couple days off decided to spend some time on the science section of revleft.

[CommunityBeliever]

Shouldn't this be in philosophy?

I believe in eternalism, in other words, there is no real flow of time and nothing new really is being created, so there are no absolute creators including god.

[Sensible Socialist]

I don't think we can simplify it to "it was always there" or "it was created," because how are we defining "there?" It's a tricky question, one that I don't think we can wrap our heads around. It's precisely that confusion around "there" that causes people to move to religion for their answers.

[AnonymousOne]

This is incredibly relevant, and much more useful than saying that something simply always existed.

7ImvlS8PLIo

[Libertador]

Physically we are mere manipulators of what is already created. Mentally we are creators creating what has never existed before.

[Rafiq]

What do people tend to believe in: that whatever created everything has a creator as well, or that whatever was before the Big Bang was just there and had no creator?

Obviously, if we were to go by the notion of there being a creator, and each thing has its own creator, this would then turn into a never-ending notion of creation. Which, quite frankly, is illogical. So even if there was a long line of one creating another, we'd eventually have to come to an end point of something just being there and having no creator whatsoever.

So, to answer my own question, I'd say whatever created everything was just there (and I don't mean God! :rolleyes: ). How about everyone else?

I've debated with something on this topic. He went on to say that a creator cannot be created since the infinite must have a finite, i.e., someone has to push the dominoes.

However, this argument is outrageously flawed, considering that no matter in the universe is created and is simply just transformed somehow from something else.

The very concept of nothingness is an illusion.

[Rafiq]

You have a crap load of posts man, you have over 4,000. Have you ever though about taking a day off?

That said, there is no creator. It is easier to just accept that we were born and we create and try to live our lives happily.

Trying to think anything more will just make you crazy imo.

It won't make you crazy, but what people must realize is that Humans do not create anything, they simply transform the environment, and the whole basis for the idea of a 'god' or 'creator' revolves around the notion that it created our environment similarly to how we transformed it.

Imagine, a primitive man sitting, in his man made tent and gazing upon the stars. Who made all this crap, like how I made this tent, he would ask.

[Weezer]

It seriously does not matter how the universe came into being. That is a question that cannot have a definite answer, at least with current scientific knowledge. Can't we just be happy with the fact that we're here?

[miltonwasfried...man]

The only constant is change. No beginning, no end. Ergo no creator.

[ianz]

Whether or not there is some "creator" is quite irrelevant. Trying to understand the origin of the universe is a fruitless endeavor. However deep you dig there will always be layers below or above it that you cannot reach, and even if you do there will be layers beyond those. In short, I'd argue that we as humans are simply incapable of finding a complete understanding of the origins of our existence due to the inability of us to perceive everything. It stands to reason that unless we can perceive everything it would be impossible to definitively understand everything, and even if it were possible to perceive everything our own individual interpretations inevitably give our own theories bias, no matter how well you approach them.

Complete understanding will come when axioms cease to exist (ie never)

[Wired]

we'd eventually have to come to an end point of something just being there and having no creator whatsoever.

Why?

If infinity doesnt exist, what is the highest number?

If you can name the highest number, you can prove that infinity doesnt exist and if you cant name the highest number, the statement in the quote above is, as far as we know, untrue.

[Meridian]

If infinity doesnt exist, what is the highest number?

The existence of infinity does not follow from a person being unable to name the highest number. This is a simple play with words. It is a property of numbers that there is no limit to them. Even if you find the highest number with a recorded use, you can simply add to it, etc.

But we can't derive the existence of 'infinity' from that fact. It seems to me that the opposite is true. The difference between a number and 'infinite' is not one of quantity, but of quality. The size of the number doesn't matter at all in that respect. The former is quantifiable, but the latter is by definition not.

[jake williams]

Existence clearly is "just there". Existence can't have been created because any creator would have to exist.

There's no reason in principle though that the visible universe can't have been created by some sort of intelligent entity.

There are some interesting theories in theoretical physics about how matter comes into being in a vacuum, but matter can only come into being in a vacuum if the vacuum in some sense "exists", if it contains some physical laws that govern the meaning of matter coming into being. At some point this does just simply have to exist, on some level of existence.

But it's a miracle it does.

[ColonelCossack]

Que?

Edit: I posted this before reading any of the reply's. I would say, 'was just there', because the pre-big bang singularity existed before time started, i.e. time started at the big bang; as a result of this, the big bang singularity did not exist because it ended at the beginning of time, that is, the big bang itself, and anything that does not exist for any amount of time has not actually existed, because time itself is a dimension. But then again, if it did not exist, how can it have existed? And it clearly did (exist), because the big bang (presumably) happened. It's difficult to understand, and it gives me a headache.

Also, what do you mean 'there', when the singularity was the entire universe? All we can say is that the universe did not exist until time began, but that statement means nothing, because 'until' means nothing when there's no time frame for it to take place in. Also, keeping that in mind, what was the big bang? The universe did not expand into anything, because of the nature of the universe. The space in the universe expanded- but since position, and therefore expansion, is relative, and because of the nature of infinity, then from the perspective of something that was infinitely small inside the 'singularity', then the ('infinitely' small) singularity may appear to be infinitely large. So, the universe could have previously been infinitely smaller than the singularity before the singularity was there, so the universe could be occilating. Maybe it's because the concept of infinity is irrational and is not a solid number, and nobody really understands what time actually is.

the moral of this story is: This stuff is unknowable, completely irrelevant, and makes me want to be agnostic.

[Ose]

There are some interesting theories in theoretical physics about how matter comes into being in a vacuum, but matter can only come into being in a vacuum if the vacuum in some sense "exists", if it contains some physical laws that govern the meaning of matter coming into being. At some point this does just simply have to exist, on some level of existence.

The way I see it, these physical laws do not exist independently of matter. They are properties of the matter itself (the way it behaves), and are meaningless without it. So they cannot exist before it and the vacuum does not have to exist (except as the negation of matter). Bear in mind that I have no background in physics, so if I'm wrong, can you explain why?

Otherwise I largely agree with the first part of Colonel Cossack's post. Nothing 'before' the Big Bang can be said to have existed in any meaningful way. Talking about what was before or what is beyond the theoretically observable universe is silly.

[∞]

Although I find it unreasonable to whole heartily claim to know of our existence, here is why I don't believe in any kind of creator. If a creator where to exist, then it would posses physical qualities and have some kind of matter. I'm not even going too argue that it needs an origin to begin with. I will assume that this divinity has always been. What doesn't seem logically sound to me is how a characteristic that consists of divine qualities might always be. If you get into the math; it makes no sense it'd be something like [infinity(n)---->(infinity)] will continue to exist. I'm sure if this is some kind of axiom, basic concepts of mathematics would be different. So I dismiss the concept entirely.

Now I have heard many other theories like String theory that suggests the Big Bang was a collision between "membranes" of other dimensions. If this is true, then we can better understand where we came from. Until the day when we discover our origin comes, I will be quite sure it wasn't a creator.

[ColonelCossack]

Also significant in my last post is the fact that there are different sizes of infinity, i.e. the infinity of decimals is bigger than the infinity of integers.

[Mac]

Humans are unable to comprehend the concept of infinity. This is how religions started. Say there is a god. But who created him?

[ColonelCossack]

Also I think we need to take into account that at the very beginning of the universe, in the planck era, the laws of physics were entirely different to now, and so concepts like time, infinity and even dimensionality would probably not exist.

[Mac]

Also I think we need to take into account that at the very beginning of the universe, in the planck era, the laws of physics were entirely different to now, and so concepts like time, infinity and even dimensionality would probably not exist.
That's pretty cool to think about :)

[gendoikari]

*scientist walks in*
Your all wrong and so am I.
*scientist walks out*


(referring to M-theory/String theory, Seriously, it's messed up stuff.)

[∞]

*scientist walks in*
Your all wrong and so am I.
*scientist walks out*


(referring to M-theory/String theory, Seriously, it's messed up stuff.)

You need to give it chance. I wouldn't say I'm an advocate for it. But the style of math they use for it is pretty cool.

[Rafiq]

Dialectics created the universe.

Matter and Anti Matter waged a war, which creaeted the big bang

[gendoikari]

You need to give it chance. I wouldn't say I'm an advocate for it. But the style of math they use for it is pretty cool.

oh i'm an advocate of string theory. in fact in a way you could say M-theory indicates the existance of god. Now that "god" might not be what the conteporary definition is. but a "god" none the less.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

oh i'm an advocate of string theory. in fact in a way you could say M-theory indicates the existance of god. Now that "god" might not be what the conteporary definition is. but a "god" none the less.

How would M-theory indicate the existence of a deity? Since it contains within it numerous different consistent string theories, one could argue that is an indication of the existence of multiple universes. Now that would not be direct falsification of the god hypothesis, but it would certainly raise the possibility that universes arise out of an unconscious process of nature, like the way species arise out of natural selection.

[∞]

Inter-dimensional membranes creating the big bang put the concept of god, closer to the trashcan.