The Origin of the Universe

[Dan-95]

Simple enough, i am hoping for this thread to have both philosophical and scientific debate.(shout out to Axel)

 

I, personally, mostly believe in the big bang model as it is practical to refference when most my peers accept scientific consensus(sometimes blindly =.=). I do find it unsettling, however, the underlying assumptions and various loopholes that go with it, so i do not accept it as an absolute truth, even when speaking scientifically. Just to clear up, these aren't so much errors as they are assumptions required for the model.

 

Other (non scientific) answers seem baseless, i am listening for some though.

 

Also, check out the biocentric universe, a mix between the two i guess.

 

So the questions are:

How do you think the universe originated? What perhaps makes your point superior or more likely than others?

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think God created it.

[danielsangeo]

Any evidence of that?

[Alyxx Thorne]

I said it's what I think. I didn't say it was a fact. And as far as I'm concerned, the evidence is in the fact nothing this complex can just start existing out of nothing or at random. It has a purpose too. But as I said, it's what I think, I would never present it as fact. Hence, I have no evidence. I know I suck at these conversations but it's just what I believe. Please don't judge me or anything, I'm not presenting it as fact.

 

The fact is is the only evidence we have is the universe itself and we have to look at how it is and how it functions to understand its origin. And the more I learn about it and look at it, the more it would make sense that it was created or designed in some way. It's just how I reason, I assume.

[danielsangeo]

I have no problem with people beliefs but I do find it curious why they have them if there's no evidence. I have never been able to believe something unless there was evidence beforehand. And, to me, "too complex" is an argument from ignorance and "purpose" is something we create for ourselves.

 

Many of our top minds are working on the origin of the universe but there just isn't enough data to formulate a theory behind it. There are hypotheses galore, of course, but nothing that rises to "theory" yet. I'm just uncomfortable ascribing the unknown to a deity...but if it works for you, I'm happy.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Yeah that's the thing, we have so many theories that have holes in them that religion becomes the only thing that fully explains it, even if there's no evidence for it. It might just be lack of knowledge about it, but even if I knew everything about the universe, I would still dare to call it complex. And it obviously has a purpose because nothing exists without purpose. Only seemingly maybe.

 

That's the reason I usually stay out of these debates. It seems the majority on this forum are atheists and I don't really feel anyone shares my point of view and would probably just dismiss religion as a "bad excuse for ignorance" or something. But I totally respect what other people think and would love to see their views.

[Rover]

I said it's what I think. I didn't say it was a fact. And as far as I'm concerned, the evidence is in the fact nothing this complex can just start existing out of nothing or at random. It has a purpose too. But as I said, it's what I think, I would never present it as fact. Hence, I have no evidence. I know I suck at these conversations but it's just what I believe. Please don't judge me or anything, I'm not presenting it as fact.

 

Though I do not agree with you I find the fact you're admitting you have no evidence and you aren't stating your position with absolute certitude, to be laudable. It is very rare for people to come out and say that. So instead of starting an argument, I'll just tell you to have a nice day

[danielsangeo]

I am not trying to start an argument or anything; I'm just providing my views here, but simply saying that "religion solves everything" is a completely backwards way of looking at things. I can come up with just about anything to explain the unknown. I can say that the universe was sneezed out of a large dragon and that the end of reality would come in the form of a giant handkerchief (apologies to Douglas Adams). I can say that the entire universe was created to bring about the Dorito chip ("nacho cheesier!"). What is that light in the night sky? Aliens!

 

The problem with using religion, in my view, to explain the unknown is that it can be anything.

 

Again, not trying to start an argument. That's just how I feel.

[Alyxx Thorne]

But that's the thing, for me it can't be anything like that. For me, religion makes sense on a much deeper level than just a random explanation. It is deeply rooted in logic and reasoning, and not to mention philosophy. It is more than just a simple "God made it" thing for me.

 

And to be honest, I am not very interested in how the universe came to be, but why it came to be, the reason behind its existence. But that's all I'm going to say because I know pretty much everyone disagrees with me so it's not like I have anything more to say.

 

But granted I always look over these threads, so it's not like I won't read what the others think.

[WonSul]

I personally prefer the expanding raisin bread model.

[ProHypster]

Hmm... if you are talking about the material/natural begining of the world? Then it's science.

 

I agree with Alyxx, the why question is much deeper and will solve much more puzzles.

 

The how question is a little thin.

[danielsangeo]

Why must there be a "why"? Why must there be a "purpose" for the universe?

[ProHypster]

Don't get me wrong, the question why can be answered with "there is no why".

 

But if there is no purpose in the universe then there is no purpose for you or me to exist and ultimately then there is no purpose in logic.

 

The world becomes illogical.

 

But in the physics world, isn't every "why" question to any action explainable.

 

Maybe this subject is just to esoteric and personal.

 

To understand the world one must first understand himself.

So I think I will keep this question a bit quiet and try to understand my surroundings before answering the big question.

 

What, I can do though is have some comments why I don't find the Big Bang theory important even if it's true.

 

Big Bang:

Will it answer any why questions: Most likely No.

Does it explain life's origins: No.

Does it really explain the begining of our universe: No, it's just an event that we think happened in the already made material universe.

 

So I don't think the Big Bang is qualified to be a theory about the begining of the material world but rather an event happening in it.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

Why does "no purpose for the universe" lead to illogic? That makes me do this face:

[WonSul]

Well yeah, the "how" question ought to be thin after what, 14 billion years?

All researchers really have to go on is the dissipating background radiation of outer space. Red shifting of Galaxies, hence Raisin Bread model. And the elements in Nebulas, stars, and planets that give an indication of how many generation of stars have formed.

 

Honestly even after just 500 million years, history starts to get a little fuzzy in terms of Earth life. Before that the picture is pretty much swiss cheese. It's the same deal for continental arrangements.

Go back far enough in anything and the only thing you get is more pieces missing from the puzzle.

 

Does the Universe really need a higher purpose or reason to exist?

Edit(danielsangeo beat me to it)

[ProHypster]

Why does "no purpose for the universe" lead to illogic? That makes me do this face:

Well, maybe I'm wrong there but stop me where I'm wrong, I'll elaborate.

 

The universe includes us, life and everything we know. If there is no purpose in that then there is no purpose in anything we know of. No purpose in anything is not true though as by our logic we know that there is at least purpose for some things. Like, I'm writing this for a purpose. So, we come to a loophole in logic or otherwise known illogic.

 

EDIT: We come to two conclusions

 

Everything has a purpose.

 

Or nothing has a purpose. (This one makes no sense though)

[WonSul]

Why does "no purpose for the universe" lead to illogic? That makes me do this face:

Well, maybe I'm wrong there but stop me where I'm wrong, I'll elaborate.

 

The universe includes us, life and everything we know. If there is no purpose in that then there is no purpose in anything we know of. No purpose in anything is not true though as by our logic we know that there is at least purpose for some things. Like, I'm writing this for a purpose.

 

Take away purpose and there is still existence.

[ProHypster]

Why does "no purpose for the universe" lead to illogic? That makes me do this face:

Well, maybe I'm wrong there but stop me where I'm wrong, I'll elaborate.

 

The universe includes us, life and everything we know. If there is no purpose in that then there is no purpose in anything we know of. No purpose in anything is not true though as by our logic we know that there is at least purpose for some things. Like, I'm writing this for a purpose.

 

Take away purpose and there is still existence.

Take away purpose and you are taking away reasoning.

Without purpose there is no philosophy.

So that would completely kill my fundament

That is basically the only rule in philosophy, everything has a purpose.

Reason, like habit or intuition, is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. But more specifically, it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect, true and false, and what is good or bad

 

Read this:

 

The great arguments of philosophy are as old as man’s ability to think. When man first understood that he was a being, now conscious of his own existence, he eventually realized that he was something both in nature and out of nature at the same time.

 

 

In nature, he was part of some erratic, chaotic order that he himself had no control over. Outside of nature, he tried to understand his relationship to nature and how he would attempt to live in a state of nature with full knowledge that he was outside it.

 

 

Standing outside the natural sphere looking in, man then attempts to define what is his role, purpose or reason for being. He begins to seek the answer to the question of “Why?”

 

 

The history of man is laden with many whom have tried to answer this simple yet impossible question. Failure hence has begotten a slew of philosophies and perspectives that still attempt to answer this question. The creation of ‘isms’ (e.g., existentialism, objectivism, hedonism, etc.) are but niche philosophies trying to understand our existence. Philosophies seem like fragments of thinking deposited like sediment over the centuries which have hardened and taken hold and are now considered niche philosophies.

 

 

Each idea, theory, discourse and so forth, aim at again answering that simple question of “why?” All great wars and subsequent human conflicts have their root in different arrivals to this very same question.

In order to understand the varying perspectives of mankind, one must begin by understanding how each individual or group has answered this very simple question.

 

 

If for instance, a man concludes that the reason ‘why’ is that we are all some part of some master plan, which naturally assumes there was an architect, then he will follow a set of principles that are in congruent with this line of thinking. Let us put a label on this person and call him a religious or spiritual person.

 

 

At the other extreme of this reasoning, we find the human who has concluded that life is a natural accident and that we evolved from a one cell amoeba and that man’s future is the here and now and no architect ever existed. This type of person we will label the atheist; does not having any theistic beliefs that there is a creator.

 

 

The third archetype is the man wrestling between the extremes of these two systems; unable to commit to one or the other. He is not convinced that creation is an accident, but he is neither convinced that there is one chief architect. We’ll refer to this type as an agnostic.

 

 

When we enter into a debate, argument or conflict with others, we are at some level differing on these 3 archetypical viewpoints. Our conflicts to this day have their origin in how we perceive our relationship to the world around us.

 

 

Our difference with others may very well be better understood if we took the time to understand their point of origin. All systems of belief are built up around one of these central tenets. Agreements amongst all will not likely be forthcoming.

 

 

And here’s something to ponder on the subject of perfection and normality: If man (or woman) is imperfect (i.e., has defects), and all humans are imperfect, shouldn’t we conclude, regardless of our belief system, that imperfection is normal. In other words, in the land of blind where everyone is blind, isn’t being blind normal? In the land of imperfect people, isn’t it normal to be imperfect? So why seek perfection when 1) we know it’s not possible and 2) everyone is imperfect anyway so why worry about it.

[danielsangeo]

"If there is no purpose in that then there is no purpose in anything we know of."

 

This is where I take issue. "Purpose" is something we, as intelligent beings, create for ourselves. "Purpose" in the universe would posit an intelligent being or force for the creation of the universe....something not in evidence.

 

One can have purpose in a purposeless world. It's not illogical.

[WonSul]

Take away purpose and you are taking away reasoning.

Without purpose there is no philosophy.

So that would completely kill my fundament

That is basically the only rule in philosophy, everything has a purpose.

Reason, like habit or intuition, is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. But more specifically, it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect, true and false, and what is good or bad

 

I'm no nihilist but I do agree with their philosophy that there is no purpose, objective reason or intrinsic value to life. Implying that individuals create the purpose, reason or value.

 

Purpose implies that there is an aim or reason for something to come into existence. In this case the Universe but even in the hypothetical situation that the universe does have a purpose, we may not know what it is. So whether we assume the universe has purpose or not, it comes down to us giving the universe a purpose we label it with or believe in. And that will vary from individual to individual. Take away the individuals and what purpose is left?

 

I suppose one could say that the purpose of the universe is to exist. But isn't that like saying that the reason for the Universe to exist is to exist? I guess that could work if the universe really needs a purpose.

Though I was assuming from the talk of the "why" having depth and god, etc that we were talking about higher purpose. Which as I'm trying to get across, isn't present. The only form it exists in is what individuals and groups come up with. Take those individuals and groups away and so too is that higher purpose removed.