Creation: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Creation » Creation

Creation
Explores the existence of the universe

Page: 1 2 3 4

Creation

domon
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 03/03/07 - 11:45 PM: Subject: Creation	#1
Now everyone can agree that no one knows for sure who (or what) created the world. Yes, some of you believe a certain way, but the truth of the matter is that you weren't there (how ever long ago) to see how it all happen and therefore you cannot say for certain how it happen. However you can say how you think it happen, hopefully what you think is based on some rational thought or belief, but nevertheless your entitled to your opinion. With that said the basic premise of all science is that 'A causes B.' So then one would logically infer the same is true about the universe. That is to say, that something (or someone) caused its existence. The real question is what (or who), and there are two leading theories to answer that question. Either an all and powerful being (God) created the world, with design or and a purpose. Or energy, with some sort of great and cosmic, unexplainable bang (big bang) created the world. The argument begins with a universal fact, ‘A cause B,’ but the truth is, if this were true then nothing can exist. Let me explain: If everything is dependent on the thing that came before it, there would be no beginning and ultimately no end. Therefore for something to exist (in our physical world) it must have a beginning and end. And so, there must be a God (or some sort of matter/energy) that is outside of physical world (time and space) and that created the physical world. One must really look at these two theories in their entirety to truly find an answer. Similarly enough both theories assume that something (energy) or someone (God) has existed eternally outside of space and time. That is to say that whether you believe in the big bang or you believe in God, you MUST believe that something (or someone) existed outside of the physical world. So it seems that although the two theories are entirely different in method, they are surprisingly similar in nature. The question now shifts from creation, to purpose. Was the earth created with a purpose, order and understanding, or what is just kinda thrown face first into existence? One could make the argument that there is a purpose, order an understanding in the world simply by looking around. We can observe different things, whether it be laws or nature, or simply moral laws, and infer that there is some order to the world. Although if you believe in the big bang, that is, energy has always existed and that out of some freakish turn of events erupted and bore our universe, then you do not believe in order or purpose. Or you could believe like Nietzsche, that we create our own purpose, but that still doesn't answer the question of order, unless you were to say that we create that too. If you believe that we create order, that argument could hold up when talking about moral order, because it could not explain natural order. Either way, in terms of purpose and order, the belief in God seems to make more sense and so is therefore the best theory explaining the creation of the universe.

Gary
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2005
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 254

Posted 03/04/07 - 12:32 AM:	#2
Hi Domon - I think this is an interesting take on creation. I do not want to “interrupt” those who want to talk about your take on these theories other than to simply make a couple of observations. 1) Quote ”With that said the basic premise of all science is that 'A causes B.' So then one would logically infer the same is true about the universe.” - Domon Is not one of the laws of science “conservation of matter”? That is, matter is neither created nor destroyed? In this case matter is eternal whatever disorganized form it takes. This principle agrees with the early christian (and egyptian) doctrines of the matter in the universe having an eternal existence whatever disorganized form it took. If the early christians who believed that the universe was created out of disorganized matter having it’s own eternal existence were correct, then this is one point that science and religion agree on. Matter is cannot be created nor destroyed. Even IF science says “A causes B”, science (and early christianity), still agreed that “A” existed. SOMETHING; in this case matter; has always existed and was not created. I do understand the later religious doctrine that the worlds were created from “nothing”, but I think the earlier christians who believed it was created out of matter were correct. For them, such controversies seemed silly. 2) quote - ”Either an all and powerful being (God) created the world, with design or and a purpose. Or energy, with some sort of great and cosmic, unexplainable bang (big bang) created the world.” , perhaps someone can correct me, but the “big bang” did not explain the origin of matter, but rather it seeks to explain the early processes of pre-existing matter that resulted in the present order of the universe. The big bang doesn’t seem to even try to discuss where matter came from. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong...) 3) quote One must really look at these two theories in their entirety to truly find an answer. Similarly enough both theories assume that something (energy) or someone (God) has existed eternally outside of space and time. That is to say that whether you believe in the big bang or you believe in God, you MUST believe that something (or someone) existed outside of the physical world. I have to ask WHY someone has to assume anything exists outside of space and time in order to explain the universe. Why cannot God or energy be IN time and eternal matter be organized the way it is. You will have to explain why I “MUST” believe in ANYTHING outside of a physical world. For example, in christian tradition, Christ resurrects with a PHYSICAL body and NOT with an “immaterial” body (whatever that might be). If the resurrection is a PHYSICAL thing, then the individuals who are resurrected and given their physical bodies back again will live in a physical world, else they will have to die (i.e. separate the spirit from the body) again Perhaps you could explain these issues before moving on with your discussion (which is interesting - thank you for bringing it up). Gary

domon
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 03/04/07 - 06:35 AM:	#3
1. Is not one of the laws of science “conservation of matter”? That is, matter is neither created nor destroyed? Though what you say is true, that is, the law of conservation exists; this fact is irrelevant concerning the creation of the world. Matter is ever changing, this is a known fact, but its mere existence suggests that it had a creator. Though matter is ever changing, it is still a physical entity, and because of this fact one must assume it was created at some point. For something to exist (in our physical world) it must have a beginning and end. That is to say, everything in our physical world (i.e. matter) can only exist if it was created and has beginning and ultimately an end. To say that matter (energy) is ‘eternal’ is saying it is outside of physical world. Our physical world operate within the restraints of space and time, therefore everything that exists inside these restrains is apart of the physical world. And so logically something outside of the physical world, which is not limited by these restraints of space and time, must have created the universe. 2. The big bang doesn’t seem to even try to discuss where matter came from. The big bang explains how this eternal matter/energy created the world. As I have explained, the physical world exists and therefore must have been created, and so we are left with the question of who created it? The big bang theory suggests that matter/energy is eternal (outside of space and time) and because of some unexplainable explosion billions of years ago erupted and bore our universe. I aimed at disproving this theory on the basis that it can not explain why order exists in the world. 3. I have to ask WHY someone has to assume anything exists outside of space and time in order to explain the universe. Why cannot God or energy be IN time and eternal matter be organized the way it is. You will have to explain why I “MUST” believe in ANYTHING outside of a physical world. Something inside of the physical restraints (i.e. space and time) could not have created the world because if it was inside of these restraints it would have been part of the physical world and thereby could not have created itself. Science teaches us that something cannot create itself and instead something greater must exist outside of the physical world (space and time). If you believe in an eternal matter/energy, that fine, but this entity would have to exist apart from its creation, and thereby separating itself from physical restraints (space and time). Matter changes, and change can only exist when a beginning and end are established. That is to say, that if matter is eternal, it has no beginning and no end, it would not change, we (being apart of matter) would not change and therefore could not exist. Existence in the physical world is dependent on the idea of change, and if nothing changed then nothing could exist.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 03/04/07 - 08:09 AM:	#4
...one must assume... If you want to say that you assume so-and-so, that is fine, but to suggest that anyone must assume seems unjustified to me.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2726

Posted 03/04/07 - 08:47 AM:	#5
domon wrote: 1. Is not one of the laws of science “conservation of matter”? That is, matter is neither created nor destroyed? Law of conservation of energy, not matter (matter can be destroyed and created.)
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

domon
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 03/04/07 - 11:05 AM:	#6
Keda I was simply replying to Gray's post, but all the same, The Law of Conservation of Matter does exist. "The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only redistributed. In chemistry, it is represented by the fact that the sum of the masses of the reactants are equal to the sum of the products formed in a chemical reaction." Rabeldin when I said, "one must assume," I was merely suggesting that logic leads us to the conclusion...Seeing as how logic and reason are innate in all men, I simply suggested that all men must assume from the facts that we were at some point created.

Gary
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2005
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 254

Posted 03/04/07 - 03:38 PM:	#7
1) Matter is ever changing, this is a known fact, but its mere existence suggests that it had a creator. - domon I do NOT understand your theory that simply because something exists, it had a creator. There are many things that are “organized” such as cars and houses made of steel and brick, but the steel and brick all existed BEFORE becoming organized. If you are suggesting that "creation" means "an organization of eternally existing matter", then I understand. But the fact that matter, which has an eternal existence (i.e. it cannot BE created or destroyed) was ITSELF created out of nothing, then this is nonsensical. Even the disorganized “stuff” out of which God would have created matter, and the "stuff" that made up that stuff, would have had an older existence and such logic would repeat itself forever until the “urstof” or primary building blocks of organization would be, indeed, eternal. For example, if God himself is made up of a type of matter, must we then assume he had a creator? It seems to me that there are some eternal verities that are simply the part of the way things are. 2) To say that matter (energy) is ‘eternal’ is saying it is outside of physical world. - domon If the parts of which the world is created (disorganized matter) is eternal, then the physical world shares characteristics of the matter of which it is made. Like matter that cannot be created or destroyed, the physical world was not created from nothing, nor can it be destroyed into nothing, but can only be organized, disorganized, and reorganized. 3) Something inside of the physical restraints (i.e. space and time) could not have created the world because if it was inside of these restraints it would have been part of the physical world and thereby could not have created itself. - domon My point is that there are some things which ARE eternal and NOT created, certainly I am not suggesting that the physical world created itself. That is as silly as suggesting God created the worlds out of nothing. It is your original theory that matter making up the universe is created from nothing that is incorrect and thus affects all subsequent assumptions based on this error. God is eternal and was not created from nothing, matter is as eternal as him and it was not created from nothing. If you can imagine God as being eternal, then it is just as easy to conceive of matter as being eternal. God can organize matter, but he does not create it out of nothing. Can you not imagine him as simply using what is already there? Keda I could easily be wrong, but I think the law of conservation of energy and conservation of mass are both laws of science... Some scientist can correct me if I am wrong. (maybe I wasn't listening very well in high school science...) Thanks though Gary Edited by Gary on 03/04/07 - 03:53 PM

PhoenixDaily
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 42

Posted 03/04/07 - 03:42 PM:	#8
[ domon wrote: With that said the basic premise of all science is that 'A causes B.' So then one would logically infer the same is true about the universe. That is to say, that something (or someone) caused its existence. The real question is what (or who), and there are two leading theories to answer that question. Either an all and powerful being (God) created the world, with design or and a purpose. Or energy, with some sort of great and cosmic, unexplainable bang (big bang) created the world. The argument begins with a universal fact, ‘A cause B,’ but the truth is, if this were true then nothing can exist. Let me explain: If everything is dependent on the thing that came before it, there would be no beginning and ultimately no end. Therefore for something to exist (in our physical world) it must have a beginning and end. And so, there must be a God (or some sort of matter/energy) that is outside of physical world (time and space) and that created the physical world. One must really look at these two theories in their entirety to truly find an answer. Similarly enough both theories assume that something (energy) or someone (God) has existed eternally outside of space and time. That is to say that whether you believe in the big bang or you believe in God, you MUST believe that something (or someone) existed outside of the physical world. God does not really solve the problem though. You say that because there is a cause for everything there must be a cause for the creation of the universe. Then you solve it be introducing God, but you fail to tell us what created God. You will no doubt tell us that God is eternal and does not need a creator, but then why not just assume that the universe/multi-verse is eternal. A lot of people tend to think that scientists think that the big bang was the creation of everything. They don't necessarily believe this. They just think that the big bang was the creation of what we can perceive of everything and our particular space-time with its contained mass and energy. There could be an infinite multi-verse that creates universes like ours all the time outside of our current perception. You may accuse me of introducing an unproved element, the multi-verse, but unlike God, there is precedent for the existence and creation of self-contained entities with their own space-times within other space-times. They are called black holes. So within our very galaxy we can observe a self-contained body of matter with its own space-time. [ domon wrote: So it seems that although the two theories are entirely different in method, they are surprisingly similar in nature. The question now shifts from creation, to purpose. Was the earth created with a purpose, order and understanding, or what is just kinda thrown face first into existence? One could make the argument that there is a purpose, order an understanding in the world simply by looking around. We can observe different things, whether it be laws or nature, or simply moral laws, and infer that there is some order to the world. Although if you believe in the big bang, that is, energy has always existed and that out of some freakish turn of events erupted and bore our universe, then you do not believe in order or purpose. Or you could believe like Nietzsche, that we create our own purpose, but that still doesn't answer the question of order, unless you were to say that we create that too. If you believe that we create order, that argument could hold up when talking about moral order, because it could not explain natural order. Either way, in terms of purpose and order, the belief in God seems to make more sense and so is therefore the best theory explaining the creation of the universe. "Not only is the universe queerer than you suppose, it’s queerer than you can suppose" -some smart guy Just because it makes more sense to you that there should be a God does not mean that there is one. It would make more sense if everything operated according to Newtonian Physics, but it doesn't. The law of the land is Quantum Mechanics, which is true, but makes no sense at all. In ancient times people used to believe that when a volcano erupted it was because there was a god inside that caused it to happen. When the rivers flooded the valleys they believed there was a god in the ocean that was mad. When somebody did something stupid people believed that one god or another caused them to do it. When we learned of the natural processes of volcanoes, the bodies of water, and the workings of the brain, we stopped believing in these gods. So if every time we start out with a god to explain something unexplainable, but later learn that it was just a natural process, why wouldn't we believe that the creation of the universe was a natural process (I'm using natural process loosely to mean without divine intervention?) I don't know if God created the Universe, but I know that if He did He probably did so with something like the Big Bang. That brings me to another point. The Big Bang and God are not non-compatible. God could have initiated the Big Bang. I don't really disagree with you that it sort of makes more sense that God created the universe. I think it’s a distinct possibility. I just don't think the question can be easily solved by logic.
We spent 3.5 billion years as the slaves of our genes, only to escape and find out we merely switched masters. We are all just a bunch of meme machines. A hardworking man creates security. An intelligent man creates innovation. A wise man creates himself.

dimka
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 1016

Posted 03/04/07 - 04:14 PM:	#9
There could be an infinite multi-verse that creates universes like ours all the time outside of our current perception. But then you've got yourself a problem in the same disguise - who created the multiverse?

Mr.Anonymous
Mr.Anonymous

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: The Internet
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 611

Posted 03/04/07 - 04:19 PM:	#10
domon wrote: Either an all and powerful being (God) created the world, with design or and a purpose. Or energy, with some sort of great and cosmic, unexplainable bang (big bang) created the world. Who's to say that the two aren't the same thing, or at least aren't connected? I'll let you ponder that. It lead me to some very interesting conclusions.
Hi.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.