What created God and what was before the big bang?

[Beth]

I had a hard time deciding whether to post this here or in the science forum, but my question is this:

When discussing the question of what was before the big bang, the answer is typically something along the lines of time didn't exist, so therefore the question makes no sense. This seems perfectly acceptable to most people who post here. But answer the question of what created God in the same way - that time didn't exist so therefore the question makes no sense seems completely unacceptable to the same folks. Why is that?

I'd be interested to hear different ideas and justifications for why the same answer is acceptable in one context but not in the other. Thanks.

[Iacchus]

Politics ...

[Freethinker]

But answer the question of what created God in the same way - that time didn't exist so therefore the question makes no sense seems completely unacceptable to the same folks. Why is that?



Once you have an imaginary fact in your logic, the rest is moot. Kind of like asking how wizards evolved from normal humans.

[Lord Emsworth]

I had a hard time deciding whether to post this here or in the science forum, but my question is this:

When discussing the question of what was before the big bang, the answer is typically something along the lines of time didn't exist, so therefore the question makes no sense. This seems perfectly acceptable to most people who post here. But answer the question of what created God in the same way - that time didn't exist so therefore the question makes no sense seems completely unacceptable to the same folks. Why is that?

I'd be interested to hear different ideas and justifications for why the same answer is acceptable in one context but not in the other. Thanks.


Because no time renders a creation event - something that is nearly inextricably tied to "God" - as unnecessary and maybe even unacceptable.

Moreover, the "What created God" line is more a means to make a point than anything else, picking up the implicit notion that the universe as a whole is subject to time, that there is a "before" the universe, a "before" the universe was created and then then transferring this notion to "God."

[l0rca]

When discussing the question of what was before the big bang, the answer is typically something along the lines of time didn't exist, so therefore the question makes no sense. This seems perfectly acceptable to most people who post here. But answer the question of what created God in the same way - that time didn't exist so therefore the question makes no sense seems completely unacceptable to the same folks. Why is that?

Time "doesn't exist" before the Big Bang according to General Relativity, because the fabric of spacetime was a part of the singularity.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the idea of there being a fabric of spacetime outside of its practicality in understanding big objects, where the knowledge to replace "fabric" with something else is not fully grasped, although I do fully recognize spacetime.

Now, I'd go on telling you how we know time didn't exist, but I'd be talking out of my feces dungeon. We don't know that. General Relativity and Quantum Physics breaks down when we talk about before the Big Bang. They also break down a couple of planck-times (I guess you could say, irconically) after it happens.

This leads some people, like the Superstring guys to believe that the Big Bang was actually the Ekpyrotic universe, where two membrane universes collided. I don't fully understand the implications of that however, and I'm unsure if the mathematicians themselves have a sure, unchanging model to date.

Philosophically speaking, a brief note about the metaphysics of "time". When General Relativists claim that "time stops," they may be referring to everywhere, or specific places. Time can effectively stop in an area where all matter ceases to move or give off energy. Time moves faster when matter moves faster. According to this, an outsider could jump-start the matter in the no-time zone with energy, and get time moving there. To that region, it precieved absolutely no movement, interraction, or evolution, therefore when it was revived (recieved some energy), time began again. But to those of us outside, where time still moves; we may say "this amount of time passed from when it stopped moving until when we revived it," although it's important to note that the amount of time that passed to us is relative to the energy that encompasses us. (Now according to my understanding, General Relativity doesn't give us a very good reason why that is, or why gravity works. I have my own idea, though...)

Does this mean that if there were multiple universes, while we were a singularity, time moved places where energy moved? Why, yes.

[Beth]

Thanks for the replies. I'm still a bit confused though.

Because no time renders a creation event - something that is nearly inextricably tied to "God" - as unnecessary and maybe even unacceptable.
Why does "no time" render a creation event, whether that event is "God" or the big bang, unnecessary?

Moreover, the "What created God" line is more a means to make a point than anything else, picking up the implicit notion that the universe as a whole is subject to time, that there is a "before" the universe, a "before" the universe was created and then then transferring this notion to "God."


Why is this point any different for the idea of a big bang than it is for idea of a creator?


Mercuryturrent: Thanks for the response, but I'm afraid I don't understand how it relates to my question. The idea that time "doesn't exist" before the big bang doesn't seem any different to me than the idea that time "doesn't exist" before God created the universe and therefore the question of what was before the big bang or what created God have what is essentially the same response - that it doesn't make any sense to ask the question. So do you find that answer equally satisfying to both or is the answer acceptable in one context but not the other? If the answer is acceptable in one case but not the other, why is that?

[l0rca]

Mercuryturrent: Thanks for the response, but I'm afraid I don't understand how it relates to my question. The idea that time "doesn't exist" before the big bang doesn't seem any different to me than the idea that time "doesn't exist" before God created the universe

Maybe, it depends on how you define god. Do you have a particular definition in mind?

and therefore the question of what was before the big bang or what created God have what is essentially the same response - that it doesn't make any sense to ask the question.

Science leaves open the possibility that there may have been things before the Big Bang- it's just that it didn't happen in our universe.

[Lord Emsworth]

Why does "no time" render a creation event, whether that event is "God" or the big bang, unnecessary?

Why is this point any different for the idea of a big bang than it is for idea of a creator?


I do not see the big bang as a creation event. It is rather part of the universe, as is the singularity for example. Maybe this illustration taken from Wikipedia will help:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b4/Universe_expansion.png/245px-Universe_expansion.png
(I hope t shows, else click here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b4/Universe_expansion.png/245px-Universe_expansion.png))

A creation event would however apply to the universe as a whole. And since time, space are the universe the positing of a creation event sounds to me a bit like saying "At first there was a time when there was no time, and then after "God" created there was a time when time existed." In other words it doesn't sound too good, almost contradictory.

My humble, as I am not that 'sciency,' outlook is rather that the universe existed all the time ;). Of course, as time, space etc. define or make up the universe. Any coming into existence are unnecessary, it just is.

[Beth]

Maybe, it depends on how you define god. Do you have a particular definition in mind?

I was thinking of God simply as that entity which created the universe or caused the universe to come into being.

Science leaves open the possibility that there may have been things before the Big Bang- it's just that it didn't happen in our universe.

To me, that answer still doesn't distinguish between God or the big bang. Certainly, the possibility exists that something could have created God. We simply cannot know what it was since in didn't happen in our universe.

I still don't understand your answer to my question. Do you find such an answer equally satisfying to both or is the answer acceptable in one context but not the other? If the answer is acceptable in one case but not the other, why is that?

[Beth]

I do not see the big bang as a creation event. It is rather part of the universe, as is the singularity for example. Maybe this illustration taken from Wikipedia will help:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b4/Universe_expansion.png/245px-Universe_expansion.png
(I hope t shows, else click here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b4/Universe_expansion.png/245px-Universe_expansion.png))

A creation event would however apply to the universe as a whole. And since time, space are the universe the positing of a creation event sounds to me a bit like saying "At first there was a time when there was no time, and then after "God" created there was a time when time existed." In other words it doesn't sound too good, almost contradictory.

My humble, as I am not that 'sciency,' outlook is rather that the universe existed all the time ;). Of course, as time, space etc. define or make up the universe. Any coming into existence are unnecessary, it just is.



I'm sorry, but I find that answer as inexplicable and unsatisfying as simply saying God did it. Where did the universe come from? How did the universe and all that is in come into existance? I thought the big bang answered the second question, but not the first. If you have no better answer to the first question that "it just is", then I don't see it as being any different that saying God created it and then answering the question of where or how God came into existance by saying that God "just is".

If you see a difference between those two non-answers, well, that is my question to you. What is the difference you see between those answers and why is it significant to you?

[l0rca]

I was thinking of God simply as that entity which created the universe or caused the universe to come into being.

Does this entity require intelligence?


To me, that answer still doesn't distinguish between God or the big bang.

You're right. Science doesn't tell us that there is no god. And it never will be able to, so long as people keep pejorating the word.

Certainly, the possibility exists that something could have created God. We simply cannot know what it was since in didn't happen in our universe.

Isn't this jumping ahead?

I still don't understand your answer to my question. Do you find such an answer equally satisfying to both or is the answer acceptable in one context but not the other? If the answer is acceptable in one case but not the other, why is that?

I don't find any answer or question that requires the belief of a god to be satisfying, because the idea of god is very ambiguous, and doesn't have any evidence to sustain it.

I'm satisfied enough with what answers science brings to the table, because I'm really not that curious of perfect answers, so long as I feel the knowledge I currently have is accurate to the best ideas available.

[Beth]

Does this entity require intelligence?

I don't know. Most people tend to assume it has intelligence.


I don't find any answer or question that requires the belief of a god to be satisfying, because the idea of god is very ambiguous, and doesn't have any evidence to sustain it.

I'm satisfied enough with what answers science brings to the table, because I'm really not that curious of perfect answers, so long as I feel the knowledge I currently have is accurate to the best ideas available.

Thank you. That answers my question.

[gnome]

I had a hard time deciding whether to post this here or in the science forum, but my question is this:

When discussing the question of what was before the big bang, the answer is typically something along the lines of time didn't exist, so therefore the question makes no sense. This seems perfectly acceptable to most people who post here. But answer the question of what created God in the same way - that time didn't exist so therefore the question makes no sense seems completely unacceptable to the same folks. Why is that?

I'd be interested to hear different ideas and justifications for why the same answer is acceptable in one context but not in the other. Thanks.

My response: you have to look at the entire argument. Asking "What created God", is a redirect of the challenge, "What created the universe?"

The person that asked "Who Created God?" isn't the one arguing that everything has to have a creator... they are pointing out that supposing the existence of a creator doesn't solve the problem, because then who created the creator?

[HeyLeroy]

I was thinking of God simply as that entity which created the universe or caused the universe to come into being.
Does this entity require intelligence?
To me, that answer still doesn't distinguish between God or the big bang.
You're right. Science doesn't tell us that there is no god. And it never will be able to, so long as people keep pejorating the word.
Certainly, the possibility exists that something could have created God. We simply cannot know what it was since in didn't happen in our universe.
Isn't this jumping ahead?
I still don't understand your answer to my question. Do you find such an answer equally satisfying to both or is the answer acceptable in one context but not the other? If the answer is acceptable in one case but not the other, why is that?
I don't find any answer or question that requires the belief of a god to be satisfying, because the idea of god is very ambiguous, and doesn't have any evidence to sustain it.
I'm satisfied enough with what answers science brings to the table, because I'm really not that curious of perfect answers, so long as I feel the knowledge I currently have is accurate to the best ideas available.

:clap:

[Beth]

My response: you have to look at the entire argument. Asking "What created God", is a redirect of the challenge, "What created the universe?"

The person that asked "Who Created God?" isn't the one arguing that everything has to have a creator... they are pointing out that supposing the existence of a creator doesn't solve the problem, because then who created the creator?

Yes. The problem I have with this is that the response to the question is usually along the same lines as the response to asking what cause/created/came before the big bang. It seems to me that often those who are uncomfortable with the response that God always existed, God lies outside of time and space, etc. are quite okay with the idea that the universe always existed, or that the before the big bang, there was no time so there was no 'before'. To me they are the same answer to essentially the same question, just a different context.

I am curious why the answer is acceptable to people in one context but not the other. I suspect that for most, the difference boils down to mercuryturrent's response that he doesn't "find any answer or question that requires the belief of a god to be satisfying". That's okay. Personally, I find them equally (dis)satisfying, but I'm agnostic. I've heard theists discuss it who are okay with the religious answer but not the scientific one for much the same reason though with an opposite POV as mercuryturrent expressed. So I'm guessing (based on the evidence of this thread thus far) that how satisfying one finds the answer is dependent on one's beliefs, not on the answer itself.

I suspected as much, but was/am curious if that is correct. Anyone have any other responses as to why such an answer is more satisfactory in one context than in the other.

[Dr Adequate]

You've got to look at the context in which the question is asked.

HIM: Everything has a cause. The Universe must have a cause. Therefore God is the cause. Therefore God exists.
ME: What caused God?
HIM: Oh, God just exists.
ME: If things can "just exist", then your premise is false.

[gnome]

It seems to me that often those who are uncomfortable with the response that God always existed, God lies outside of time and space, etc. are quite okay with the idea that the universe always existed, or that the before the big bang, there was no time so there was no 'before'. To me they are the same answer to essentially the same question, just a different context.
You've misunderstood them, as I described above. It's not discomfort with the idea that causes them to reject the answer... it's rejected because it's inconsistent. The creationist can't have it both ways... either things have to have a creator, or they don't.

[Iacchus]

I was thinking of God simply as that entity which created the universe or caused the universe to come into being. God would be the entity that exists on the other side of matter. Which is to say, everything that God does, is at least as fast as the speed of light. I don't know why that's so hard for these folks to grasp? :confused:

[Jekyll]

God would be the entity that exists on the other side of matter. Which is to say, everything that God does, is at least as fast as the speed of light. I don't know why that's so hard for these folks to grasp? :confused:
So is god super-infinitely heavy or is this just really dense?

[l0rca]

So is god super-infinitely heavy or is this just really dense?

No no Jekyll. He said it's not made of matter. God is made of god. Get it? If you don't get it, you're obviously not deep enough.

[Beth]

You've misunderstood them, as I described above. It's not discomfort with the idea that causes them to reject the answer... it's rejected because it's inconsistent. The creationist can't have it both ways... either things have to have a creator, or they don't.

I don't feel that those who accept that God 'just is' and exists outside of time and space to be any more or less inconsistent than those who accept that the universe 'just is' and there is no 'before' the big bang. I find the answer of 'the question doesn't apply because ____ lies outside of this universe' to be essentially the same answer to the question of where did the universe and all that it is in it come from. I don't find it any more preposterous to suppose that there was something that created this universe than to suppose that it simply exploded into being without any cause. Clearly, not everyone feels as I do but that's to be expected. At any rate, I appreciate the responses here. It's helpful in understanding why people feel the way they do.

[strathmeyer]

I'm sorry, but I find that answer as inexplicable and unsatisfying as simply saying God did it. Where did the universe come from? How did the universe and all that is in come into existance? I thought the big bang answered the second question, but not the first. If you have no better answer to the first question that "it just is", then I don't see it as being any different that saying God created it and then answering the question of where or how God came into existance by saying that God "just is".

If you ask a nonsensical question, you'll get a nonsensical answer.

What are the possible answers to your quesiton? What would each of the different answers mean? How would we figure out which answer was true?

[Iacchus]

So is god super-infinitely heavy or is this just really dense?No, albeit God is a real heavy in His own right, He is as light as a feather ... although even that would be too much mass. ;)

[Iacchus]

Does this entity require intelligence? Yes, but as an "intelligent being," I would like to know who my Daddy is. Why shouldn't we ask why?

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm sorry, but I find that answer as inexplicable and unsatisfying as simply saying God did it. Where did the universe come from? How did the universe and all that is in come into existance? I thought the big bang answered the second question, but not the first. If you have no better answer to the first question that "it just is", then I don't see it as being any different that saying God created it and then answering the question of where or how God came into existance by saying that God "just is".

If you see a difference between those two non-answers, well, that is my question to you. What is the difference you see between those answers and why is it significant to you?


Why not just go ahead and in addition to "God" (whatever that may be anyway) posit "Blad" and "Moru" as two further entities "God," huh? All three are unnecessary from a cosmological standpoint, and hence their introduction is unwarranted and unjustified. The universe on the other hand is undisputed.

I hope you see the difference between going by what we have, i.e. the universe, and just making up additional, unwarrated concepts like "God," "Blad" and Moru."

[Iacchus]

So, why are we here? Any reason in particular? And why do we seem to be predisposed to ask why?

[Dogdoctor]

So, why are we here? Any reason in particular? And why do we seem to be predisposed to ask why?
I am not so predisposed to ask. We are here because ***(make up a reason)***. Why does there have to be a reason? I would say we are because of coincidence and because if we were somewhere else we would be there and not here.

[Iacchus]

I am not so predisposed to ask. We are here because ***(make up a reason)***. Why does there have to be a reason? I would say we are because of coincidence and because if we were somewhere else we would be there and not here.So, the Universe mysteriously ushered itself in out of nowhere, and now, here it is a short time later, curious about why it's here? Indeed, how could it possibly answer this, except to acknowledge that something else created it?

[Dogdoctor]

You are looking for a reason to exist? Use your imagination. I don't need a reason.

[Iacchus]

You are looking for a reason to exist? Use your imagination. I don't need a reason.The only reasonable suggestion I can come up with, is to say we were not put here by chance.

[Dogdoctor]

Does a rock need a reason to exist or a tree? Why does there need to be a reason? If we don't have a reason does that say something about us? Whys is there gravity? Do we need a reason? Why is there so much suffering in the world? Why do innocent children suffer and die miserable deaths? Reasons? It is simply the way things are.

[gnome]

I don't feel that those who accept that God 'just is' and exists outside of time and space to be any more or less inconsistent than those who accept that the universe 'just is' and there is no 'before' the big bang. I find the answer of 'the question doesn't apply because ____ lies outside of this universe' to be essentially the same answer to the question of where did the universe and all that it is in it come from. I don't find it any more preposterous to suppose that there was something that created this universe than to suppose that it simply exploded into being without any cause. Clearly, not everyone feels as I do but that's to be expected. At any rate, I appreciate the responses here. It's helpful in understanding why people feel the way they do.
To answer another way... one conclusion (universe + god-creator) supposes the existence of an entity not in evidence. The other conclusion (universe alone) does not. If things can "just be"... why imagine a creator that isn't necessary? And if things cant "just be"... then the creator needs a creator.

If you don't understand... consider the Lord Elmsworth's example and ask yourself why you're not comfortable supposing "Blad", "Moru" and any number of other entities... for the very same reason, I prefer not to suppose "God" either.

[Iacchus]

Does a rock need a reason to exist or a tree? Why does there need to be a reason? If we don't have a reason does that say something about us? Whys is there gravity? Do we need a reason? Why is there so much suffering in the world? Why do innocent children suffer and die miserable deaths? Reasons? It is simply the way things are.So, why the emphasis on "suffering," "innocent" and "miserable?" If things just happen, who cares?

[Dogdoctor]

So, why the emphasis on "suffering," "innocent" and "miserable?" If things just happen, who cares?
No emphasis. My point is you seem to think there is a reason and you know it? and if so then maybe you could explain. However it sounds like you aren't saying you understand only that somehow you "know". As far as who cares? It seems obvious to me that an all powerful all knowing being doesn't care.

[stamenflicker]

God created Himself.

Flick

[Beth]

Gnome and Lord Elsworth:

Let me rephrase what you are saying. If you agree with my restatement, I think I understand you.

It's okay to accept that the universe has no cause, but if you postulate a cause (i.e. God), it's not okay to stop there. You would then need to postulate a cause for the cause, and there is no reason to stop there either. Thus, you find it inconsistent to stop at God.

[Tricky]

God created Himself.

Of course, if the creator need not exist prior to the creation, then we could just say "the universe created itself" and leave out the need for evidenceless things like God.

[stamenflicker]

Of course, if the creator need not exist prior to the creation, then we could just say "the universe created itself" and leave out the need for evidenceless things like God.

Unless of course the assumed god is a self aware universe and the birth and the death of universes are related, then you'd have self aware matter (or god) spreading its influence at each big bang. And if matter develops the ability through one of its own extensions (human beings) to one day direct its own development (or deconstruction), then theism itself may be one of the tools for the assumed god to become what his own members dictate he ought be.

If god is self-aware matter than there is no real contradiction in saying that man makes god in his own image. Maybe thats what the assumed god is counting on while buried in the process of cosmology and evolution. In fact, it could keep trying (via multiverses) until it accomplishes whatever it wishes to accomplish via trial and error.

Flick

[KingMerv00]

God created Himself.

Flick

Ironic:

Your statement contradicts itself.

[stamenflicker]

Ironic:

Your statement contradicts itself.

Not if the assumed god is a universal ideal birthing himself through the exertions of matter that lead toward self-awareness and self-manipulation.

Flick

[Beth]

Unless of course the assumed god is a self aware universe and the birth and the death of universes are related, then you'd have self aware matter (or god) spreading its influence at each big bang. And if matter develops the ability through one of its own extensions (human beings) to one day direct its own development (or deconstruction), then theism itself may be one of the tools for the assumed god to become what his own members dictate he ought be.

If god is self-aware matter than there is no real contradiction in saying that man makes god in his own image. Maybe thats what the assumed god is counting on while buried in the process of cosmology and evolution. In fact, it could keep trying (via multiverses) until it accomplishes whatever it wishes to accomplish via trial and error.

Flick

An interesting conception of God. Thanks for sharing.

[KingMerv00]

Unless of course the assumed god is a self aware universe and the birth and the death of universes are related, then you'd have self aware matter (or god) spreading its influence at each big bang. And if matter develops the ability through one of its own extensions (human beings) to one day direct its own development (or deconstruction), then theism itself may be one of the tools for the assumed god to become what his own members dictate he ought be.

If god is self-aware matter than there is no real contradiction in saying that man makes god in his own image. Maybe thats what the assumed god is counting on while buried in the process of cosmology and evolution. In fact, it could keep trying (via multiverses) until it accomplishes whatever it wishes to accomplish via trial and error.

Flick

I have self aware matter in one hand and dumb matter in the other. What's the difference?

[stamenflicker]

I have self aware matter in one hand and dumb matter in the other. What's the difference?

I guess we have to wait and see don't we?

Flick

[KingMerv00]

I guess we have to wait and see don't we?

Flick

Um er what?

[stamenflicker]

Um er what?

Well, what does your self-aware brain do with a pile of dumb rocks? How is a question like that to be answered in any other way than wait and see?

Flick

[KingMerv00]

Well, what does your self-aware brain do with a pile of dumb rocks? How is a question like that to be answered in any other way than wait and see?

Flick

I think there has been a misunderstanding.

You hypothesized that the enitre universe is self-aware, not just us humans.

[gnome]

Gnome and Lord Elsworth:

Let me rephrase what you are saying. If you agree with my restatement, I think I understand you.

It's okay to accept that the universe has no cause, but if you postulate a cause (i.e. God), it's not okay to stop there. You would then need to postulate a cause for the cause, and there is no reason to stop there either. Thus, you find it inconsistent to stop at God.

That's more or less what I'm saying. Add in the part about being reluctant to assume something exists when the observation can be explained without that assumption, and you're there.

[gnome]

Unless of course the assumed god is a self aware universe and the birth and the death of universes are related, then you'd have self aware matter (or god) spreading its influence at each big bang. And if matter develops the ability through one of its own extensions (human beings) to one day direct its own development (or deconstruction), then theism itself may be one of the tools for the assumed god to become what his own members dictate he ought be.

If god is self-aware matter than there is no real contradiction in saying that man makes god in his own image. Maybe thats what the assumed god is counting on while buried in the process of cosmology and evolution. In fact, it could keep trying (via multiverses) until it accomplishes whatever it wishes to accomplish via trial and error.

Flick

If God is the universe, why call it god? Why not call it the universe?

[Beth]

That's more or less what I'm saying. Add in the part about being reluctant to assume something exists when the observation can be explained without that assumption, and you're there.

Thanks. I'm glad I understand you better. However, I don't know what exlanation you are referred to for the observation that the universe exists. I though you were saying that it "just is" and doesn't require a cause.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Who is this god character you people keep referring to? Everyone knows that the universe was created when a Giant Yellow Mutant Space Chicken laid it (like an egg). You people with your "science" and "math" are just pathetic.

LLH

[Iacchus]

Of course, if the creator need not exist prior to the creation, then we could just say "the universe created itself" and leave out the need for evidenceless things like God.Not without a precedent?

[Iacchus]

I think there has been a misunderstanding.

You hypothesized that the enitre universe is self-aware, not just us humans.Is it possible that the entire universe is a manifestation of self-awareness? And no, I'm not speaking strickly in human terms, albeit we would be the by-product of that universal self-awareness.

[TobiasTheViking]

Is it possible that the entire universe is a manifestation of self-awareness? And no, I'm not speaking strickly in human terms, albeit we would be by-product of that universal self-awareness.
Entirely possible. Maybe not propable.

I personally like the idea of us being the universe trying to figure itself out, do i think it is likely, no, but i like the symmetry of that idea... Ever since i first heard it on B5.

[KingMerv00]

Is it possible that the entire universe is a manifestation of self-awareness?

How would you know if it was?

[stamenflicker]

You hypothesized that the enitre universe is self-aware, not just us humans.

No, I was just putting thoughts out there regarding the possibility of God making Himself. And also I feel like I indicated that self-awareness of the universe is in a process of becoming, not a finished product, but maybe I wasn't clear.

Anyway, how can you be clear when discussing ideologies in which no one could ever really demonstrate? Instead, for me I am more interested in claims which state it is not possible for an assumed god to create himself, or claims that universe is exactly what we perceive it to be, which is equally unprovable, as well as distastefully anthropomorphic.

Flick

[gnome]

Not without a precedent?

What kind of precedent?

[KingMerv00]

No, I was just putting thoughts out there regarding the possibility of God making Himself. And also I feel like I indicated that self-awareness of the universe is in a process of becoming, not a finished product, but maybe I wasn't clear.

Probably my fault.

Anyway, God "creating himself" as you describe would imply awareness and intention before humans and animal arose, wouldn't it?

[Lord Emsworth]

Gnome and Lord Elsworth:

Let me rephrase what you are saying. If you agree with my restatement, I think I understand you.

It's okay to accept that the universe has no cause, but if you postulate a cause (i.e. God), it's not okay to stop there. You would then need to postulate a cause for the cause, and there is no reason to stop there either. Thus, you find it inconsistent to stop at God.


It goes into the right direction, yes. Though in my opinion it may even be OK to "postulate a cause (i.e. God)" AND "to stop there" as long as one doesn't try to prove the existence of "God" by appealing to an allegedly needed cause for or origin of the universe.

[ynot]

I had a hard time deciding whether to post this here or in the science forum, but my question is this:

When discussing the question of what was before the big bang, the answer is typically something along the lines of time didn't exist, so therefore the question makes no sense. This seems perfectly acceptable to most people who post here. But answer the question of what created God in the same way - that time didn't exist so therefore the question makes no sense seems completely unacceptable to the same folks. Why is that?

I'd be interested to hear different ideas and justifications for why the same answer is acceptable in one context but not in the other. Thanks.

Obviously the father of God created God (everyone has to have a father) and at the same time (God-time that is because time didn't exist yet) the father of God flicked the singularity with his index finger which set off the BIG BANG

[Belz...]

The idea that time "doesn't exist" before the big bang doesn't seem any different to me than the idea that time "doesn't exist" before God created the universe and therefore the question of what was before the big bang or what created God have what is essentially the same response - that it doesn't make any sense to ask the question.

Yes it does. The supposed singularity that made the big bang is in no way, shape or form similar to an omnipotent, omniscient God. One is immensely complex, the other immensely simple. Both aren't the same thing, and one isn't a dodge to avoid the question.

[Belz...]

So, why are we here? Any reason in particular? And why do we seem to be predisposed to ask why?

Learning is a survival trait.

God would be the entity that exists on the other side of matter. Which is to say, everything that God does, is at least as fast as the speed of light. I don't know why that's so hard for these folks to grasp?

Because you just made that up.

What is this "other side of time" you speak of ?

How would being there automatically make the things you do "at least as fast as the speed of light" ?

[Belz...]

So, the Universe mysteriously ushered itself in out of nowhere, and now, here it is a short time later, curious about why it's here? Indeed, how could it possibly answer this, except to acknowledge that something else created it?

The universe is not curious. You are. The fact that you're curious about your origins doesn't mean Gunderscored did it. I don't see how it could follow.

[Iacchus]

The universe is not curious. You are. The fact that you're curious about your origins doesn't mean Gunderscored did it. I don't see how it could follow.Of course, it has nothing to do with anything.

[Belz...]

Of course, it has nothing to do with anything.

So, what the HELL are you saying ?

[Iacchus]

So, what the HELL are you saying ?Nothing, of course.

[KingMerv00]

Nothing, of course.

I am kept awake at nights wondering if you are a troll or not. Can someone honestly "think" like you?

What if you are a doctor....or God forbid a teacher.:covereyes

[Iacchus]

So, to what do we owe our origin? Something perhaps? ... Or, nothing?

[Belz...]

So, to what do we owe our origin? Something perhaps? ... Or, nothing?

Since, by your own admittance, you are really saying nothing, I don't see any point in reading your drivel.

[Iacchus]

Since, by your own admittance, you are really saying nothing, I don't see any point in reading your drivel.Yes, understandibly so ... if, "drivel" has no point of origin.

[stamenflicker]

Probably my fault.

Anyway, God "creating himself" as you describe would imply awareness and intention before humans and animal arose, wouldn't it?

Once the process started, yes. But in a timeless state pre-Bangaroo, who could really say? I like TS Eliot's approach in the Four Quartets... although he has little to do with cosmology... "My end is my beginning."

Flick

[Belz...]

Yes, understandibly so ... if, "drivel" has no point of origin.

Oh, it does. You're the origin of all drivel, it seems.

[Paul2]

Beth: I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if someone else has made this point.

The difference between god and the universe that leads to accepting no cause for the big bang but requiring one for god is that the universe is obviously apparent--no way to get around its existence--but god is unnecessary.

Looked at another way: something has to have been uncaused, or we fall into the infinity of causers. That something should be the universe and not god because we don't need god as that something that isn't caused. The universe works quite well, thank you.

[Roboramma]

Beth, the way I see it, belief in God requires belief in something that doesn't require a creator (even if that thing is god's great grandfather).
Belief in the universe requires belief in something that doesn't require a creator.

So the argument that things require a creator and therefore there must be a god doesn't hold up. And that's all that is being addressed with the question "then who created god?"
It isn't to say there could be no god, because he would require a creator, just that is no more inconsistent to say that the universe "just is" than to say that god "just is".

edit: Paul2 and I seem to have made the same point at the same time...

[Belz...]

Yes it does. The supposed singularity that made the big bang is in no way, shape or form similar to an omnipotent, omniscient God. One is immensely complex, the other immensely simple. Both aren't the same thing, and one isn't a dodge to avoid the question.

Beth,

To follow up on what I said, when someone says : "God created the universe", a question that must then be asked is: "who is God ?", to which one invariably answers: "God is an omnipotent, omniscient beign who created the universe in order for humans to live in and love him."

Putting aside the fact that this [admittedly made up by me] answer contains the question and is therefore circular, one must then ask, in all honesty, a plethora of questions: "Why ?", "How does that work ?", "How can God have human feelings and thoughts if he isn't a biological beign ?", "How does God function ?", "Where is God ?", etc. And one obvious question is "Who made God ?".

Now, the mere fact that the God answer requires so many questions which are, of course, only answered by unverified assumptions, makes that hypothesis excessively complex, because in order to answer the original question, "What created the universe ?", we must make a long leap of reason by accepting all these assumptions as true without evidence.

With the scientific theory about the origin of the universe, there is no time or space before the Big Bang. The idea of "has always been this way" is removed, and underlying the universe is a dimensionless singularity of pure chaos, randomly firing off fluctuations. Short of total nothingness, that's the simplest thing you can imagine. There is no more questions you can ask, assuming, of course, that that one answer is true. Therefore, it's simpler, and happens to work with what we already know.

Finally, the question "What made God ?" is often used, as was stated previously, to illustrate how the God hypothesis doesn't answer the question because it merely delays the inevitable question of ultimate origins. Before science brought it up, the idea that time and space didn't exist at some "point" never seemed to occur to those divinely-inspired religions.

[Iacchus]

Well, if there was no spiritual world or, afterlife, who cares whether God did anything? God is only necessary in order to support this.

[Iacchus]

Oh, it does. You're the origin of all drivel, it seems.If by this you mean a time and a place existing prior to the Big Bang, then yes, this is the origin of my drivel. However, you do realize that this was kind of the point to the original post don't you?

[Belz...]

Well, if there was no spiritual world or, afterlife, who cares whether God did anything? God is only necessary in order to support this.

God is actually unnecessary. That's pretty much the point of my post.

Can you read ?

If by this you mean a time and a place existing prior to the Big Bang, then yes, this is the origin of my drivel. However, you do realize that this was kind of the point to the original post don't you?

How many times must someone tell you this before you understand, dolphin-man ? THERE WAS NO TIME OR SPACE PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO "PRIOR" THE BIG BANG.

[Iacchus]

God is actually unnecessary. That's pretty much the point of my post.

Can you read ?Sure I can. Can you?

How many times must someone tell you this before you understand, dolphin-man ? THERE WAS NO TIME OR SPACE PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO "PRIOR" THE BIG BANG.Which of course is "drivel" to me. ;)

[Iacchus]

God is actually unnecessary. That's pretty much the point of my post.Within the parameters of time and space, yes, I agree. However, nobody seems to be willing to assess where time space came from. The question really is quite simple.

[Mercutio]

The question really is quite simple.
But the answer, on the other hand, might involve a bit more work than you are willing to put into it.

[Iacchus]

But the answer, on the other hand, might involve a bit more work than you are willing to put into it.If I felt it was necessary I would ... either that, or not bother.

[Mercutio]

If I felt it was necessary I would ... either that, or not bother.
So, we may deduce from this that the questions that you ask here are trivial? You get loads of great suggestions about how to find the answers, but have steadfastly refused to follow up on them. So, you feel it is not worth the bother? Why ask them in the first place?

[Tricky]

Why ask them in the first place?
Two words, and they rhyme with Shattention Shore. (But I'm having a hard time fitting them into a limerick.)

[Mercutio]

Two words, and they rhyme with Shattention Shore. (But I'm having a hard time fitting them into a limerick.)
Does that even work for a solipsist? Basking in one's own adulation?

[Iacchus]

So, we may deduce from this that the questions that you ask here are trivial? You get loads of great suggestions about how to find the answers, but have steadfastly refused to follow up on them. So, you feel it is not worth the bother? Why ask them in the first place?If it requires a lot of exhaustive work which, thus far doesn't seem to amount to anything, then no, I would not be particularly interested. However, the question is quite straight forward and, elicits a straight forward answer. Therefore, maybe it's not so difficult as one might think? ;)

[Beth]

Thanks for all the replies to my initial question. There is a fairly consistent core response that has helped me to understand your point of view.

Beth

[Belz...]

Sure I can. Can you?

Saying "you too" isn't a proper defense. The fact remains that you didn't read my post or didn't understand it.

Which of course is "drivel" to me. ;)

Mainly because, as usual, you don't understand it.

[Belz...]

If it requires a lot of exhaustive work which, thus far doesn't seem to amount to anything, then no, I would not be particularly interested. However, the question is quite straight forward and, elicits a straight forward answer. Therefore, maybe it's not so difficult as one might think? ;)

You HAVE been given straightforward answers, and it ISN'T that much work for you. But since you, right off the bat, refuse to believe the answer, it seems "trivial" or "drivel" or it "doesn't amount to anything" to you. The problem isn't the answer, it's the space between Iacchus' ears.

[Undesired Walrus]

Just bumping this up, I wish to make known a trap I feel theists may lay out for skeptics on this matter.

Often, a more intelligent theist will say that we do not know what caused the big bang, and their theism is a way they grow 'closer' to what that was. Maybe it is the Christian God, maybe it is the Hindu Gods. They have 'different ways of getting there' than other faiths.

However, the person before the universe could have been a gigantic fart from a mutated alien staircase in their mind, but they may say 'Why can't the farting staircase exist'?

[gnome]

Within the parameters of time and space, yes, I agree. However, nobody seems to be willing to assess where time space came from. The question really is quite simple.

How about a simple, "I don't know?"

If you imagine that something is forced logically to exist to create it, then you only invite paradox because then something has to exist to create THAT.

Or, you must accept that not everything that exists must have a creator, and the logical necessity of a creator for the universe goes out the window.

[Robin]

I had a hard time deciding whether to post this here or in the science forum, but my question is this:

When discussing the question of what was before the big bang, the answer is typically something along the lines of time didn't exist, so therefore the question makes no sense. This seems perfectly acceptable to most people who post here. But answer the question of what created God in the same way - that time didn't exist so therefore the question makes no sense seems completely unacceptable to the same folks. Why is that?

I'd be interested to hear different ideas and justifications for why the same answer is acceptable in one context but not in the other. Thanks.
I would have to hear examples of what you are talking about.

You see there is a claim that is popular among Theists along the lines that complexity implies an intelligent designer. In that case it is fair enough to point out that the intelligent designer would also have to be complex and the same argument would apply to it.

Since this clearly implies some kind of infinite chain of increasingly complex designers we can see that the statement that complexity requires a designer is simply false.

With the scientific argument regarding the big bang and time there is more than one hypothesis and no consensus. The one you have probably heard is that saying what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. That statement refers to a specific hypothesis and it contains the claim that everything required to explain the universe is contained withing the universe. If this is so then a "cause for the big bang" becomes a meaningless phrase.

On the other hand some people think there was indeed a cause for the big bang and this means that something does exist apart from the universe and something did precede the big bang.

If this is so then "a cause for the big bang" is meaningful, as is the question "what caused the thing that caused the big bang?" Of course it may be that even if there is an external cause for the universe we will never know what it is, never mind what caused it.

Do you notice, by the way, that if the absence of time makes causality meaningless then God could not possibly have created the Universe?