The creation conundrum

Watch
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
First off I'd like to say that the fact that we are here to ask this question is evidence in itself that what I'm about to say is true. Many people know this already but not many people actually think about what it means.

People often say that if god created us then what created god, and then what created the thing that created god ect ect. This can be defined as:

Humans\rightarrow Big Bang\rightarrow God\rightarrow X \rightarrow  Y \rightarrow Z\rightarrow...\infty

So immediately we can see a problem with this. If everything that exists needs a creator, then nothing can exist. Nothing can be created without a creator, so the initial creation can never happen. Unless of course at some point down the chain of creation we find something that has always existed, or something that can create itself from absolutely nothing.

So the fact that we are sitting here means that either one is true. Either something somewhere down the line has always existed "eternal", or that the first ever thing to start the chain of creation created itself from nothing that existed previously.

Think about it logically, whether this "thing" is god, energy or a 3 headed dragon on a unicycle is anyones guess.

Bottom line is if everything needs a creator, then we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

Thoughts?
0
reply
The Angry Stoic
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
I answer is one of these things doesn't need a creator for whatever reason. I think it far more likely it is the universe itself rather than any sort of god.

I think Hawking has already proposed gravity creates itself.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
This topic of discussion has been analysed in the 'Does God Exist V2' thread.

I personally believe that energy, or at least something, has always been around.
0
reply
Farm_Ecology
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
A creator is only needed in all cases (as suggested) if:

a) You assume things cannot appear spontaneously
b) Causality is relevant


Causality only makes sense when view events from the perspective of time flowing forward. Otherwise there are simply relationships between events, but not necessarily causation.

So, the most likely option is that some originator was uncreated due to the lack of need for creation criteria. This fits in well with our current model, with the Universe. As time began (theoretically) with the start of the universe, there is no need for a creation because the need for causality is moot.
0
reply
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by Farm_Ecology)
A creator is only needed in all cases (as suggested) if:

a) You assume things cannot appear spontaneously
b) Causality is relevant


Causality only makes sense when view events from the perspective of time flowing forward. Otherwise there are simply relationships between events, but not necessarily causation.

So, the most likely option is that some originator was uncreated due to the lack of need for creation criteria. This fits in well with our current model, with the Universe. As time began (theoretically) with the start of the universe, there is no need for a creation because the need for causality is moot.
Well think of it like this then.

A was created by B
B was created by C
C was created by D
D was created by E
E has always existed or created itself.

Then E is resonsible for A. So no matter how far you go down the chain, no matter what is was that was the absolute first thing to exist is responsible for all other creation.

Now we have to ask ourselves which is the more logical, likely event. The absolute first thing that existed created itself and spawned spontaneously, or it had always existed and is eternal.

It seems like such a simple question but always so very tough
0
reply
Farm_Ecology
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
Now we have to ask ourselves which is the more logical, likely event. The absolute first thing that existed created itself and spawned spontaneously, or it had always existed and is eternal.
Can't it be both? If it was created spontaneously, along with time, then it would have existed since the beginning of time, and as long as anything good possibly have existed, which is about as eternal as you can get. Eternity would mean very little beyond that point.
0
reply
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by Farm_Ecology)
Can't it be both? If it was created spontaneously, along with time, then it would have existed since the beginning of time, and as long as anything good possibly have existed, which is about as eternal as you can get. Eternity would mean very little beyond that point.
It can't be both, if something is created then it isn't eternal. For something to be eternal is has to have always existed, it is infinite. Even if said thing creates itself it isn't classed as eternal because at some point it didn't exist.

So either it always existed and is eternal, or it created itself which gave rise to the start of the chain of creation. It certainly can't be both.
0
reply
R.P.Everything.
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
If you are proposing that there can be uncaused causes, then the big question that remains is why do you need a God?

The cosmological argument's first premise is that the Universe cannot account for itself, but then concludes that something must be able to account for itself for there to be something rather than nothing. Why can't the Universe simply be an uncaused 'brute fact' as Russell puts it?
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
If you are proposing that there can be uncaused causes, then the big question that remains is why do you need a God?

The cosmological argument's first premise is that the Universe cannot account for itself, but then concludes that something must be able to account for itself for there to be something rather than nothing. Why can't the Universe simply be an uncaused 'brute fact' as Russell puts it?
It is possible of course, but we know the universe had a beginning. So I guess we'd have to extend the definition of the Universe to before the big bang also, and its current form is just a different variation of what it was before.
0
reply
R.P.Everything.
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
It is possible of course, but we know the universe had a beginning. So I guess we'd have to extend the definition of the Universe to before the big bang also, and its current form is just a different variation of what it was before.
Thank you, I guess I would slightly alter my argument and say that the Big Bang could be an uncaused cause.
0
reply
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
If you are proposing that there can be uncaused causes, then the big question that remains is why do you need a God?

The cosmological argument's first premise is that the Universe cannot account for itself, but then concludes that something must be able to account for itself for there to be something rather than nothing. Why can't the Universe simply be an uncaused 'brute fact' as Russell puts it?
It can be. Anything that creates itself from absolutely ntohing is an uncaused cause. Whether that uncaused cause was the big bang, god, or something previous is anyones guess. The point I'm making is what is more likely?

Something creating itself from absolutely nothing where nothing existed before and is responsible for all other creation. Or that something has always existed and always will exist. It never created itself because it always was.

I guess you could argue that the thing that created itself could go on to exist forever, but does that make it eternal? I think if something can be created then it can be destroyed.

It's a tough question and I really don't know what to believe, both some equally outrageous statements to make but nevertheless one of them is true.

Either something has always existed, or the first thing to exist created itself.

It can't be both like I said, because if something has always existed, then it was never created in the first place.
0
reply
R.P.Everything.
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
It can be. Anything that creates itself from absolutely ntohing is an uncaused cause. Whether that uncaused cause was the big bang, god, or something previous is anyones guess. The point I'm making is what is more likely?

Something creating itself from absolutely nothing where nothing existed before and is responsible for all other creation. Or that something has always existed and always will exist. It never created itself because it always was.

I guess you could argue that the thing that created itself could go on to exist forever, but does that make it eternal? I think if something can be created then it can be destroyed.

It's a tough question and I really don't know what to believe, both some equally outrageous statements to make but nevertheless one of them is true.

Either something has always existed, or the first thing to exist created itself.

It can't be both like I said, because if something has always existed, then it was never created in the first place.
I guess you could argue that the Universe as a brute fact has always existed in one form or the other, although I don't know enough about physics to explain how that works. It is philosophically possible for the universe to create itself, and philosophically possible that the universe has always existed. Whether or not a God is more likely to be the brute fact, I don't really know (I think its impossible to prove that it is).
0
reply
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
I guess you could argue that the Universe as a brute fact has always existed in one form or the other, although I don't know enough about physics to explain how that works. It is philosophically possible for the universe to create itself, and philosophically possible that the universe has always existed. Whether or not a God is more likely to be the brute fact, I don't really know (I think its impossible to prove that it is).
Don't forget that the universe as we understand it couldn't have always existed because it came into existence from the big bang. The big bang is the start of the creation of the universe.

I think you mean the energy that made the big bang possible has always existed? That's perfectly valid.
0
reply
R.P.Everything.
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
Don't forget that the universe as we understand it couldn't have always existed because it came into existence from the big bang. The big bang is the start of the creation of the universe.

I think you mean the energy that made the big bang possible has always existed? That's perfectly valid.
Well I did a GCSE in astronomy, and one theory is that the Universe is just a continuous cycle of Big bangs and big crunches, or that the life of a universe is completely circular. Of course, we can never know for certain, but I can see a viable possibility for an eternally existent universe, or even just energy, which still provides us with an uncaused cause.
1
reply
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
Well I did a GCSE in astronomy, and one theory is that the Universe is just a continuous cycle of Big bangs and big crunches, or that the life of a universe is completely circular. Of course, we can never know for certain, but I can see a viable possibility for an eternally existent universe, or even just energy, which still provides us with an uncaused cause.
Unforntunately that big bang - big crunch theory is pretty much forgotten about now. We know that the universe is expanding and that it's accelerating faster and faster. The universe has nothing to slow down it's acceleration as far as we know so it will just keep getting faster.

Who knows maybe the universe will get so large that it can't support itself anymore and will eventually come back in on itself but Hubble's law states that the universe is expanding and gaining speed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...concludes.html little read for you, it'sa tad old but nevertheless.
0
reply
R.P.Everything.
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
Unforntunately that big bang - big crunch theory is pretty much forgotten about now. We know that the universe is expanding and that it's accelerating faster and faster. The universe has nothing to slow down it's acceleration as far as we know so it will just keep getting faster.

Who knows maybe the universe will get so large that it can't support itself anymore and will eventually come back in on itself but Hubble's law states that the universe is expanding and gaining speed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...concludes.html little read for you, it'sa tad old but nevertheless.
The point is not in the detail, more so the general philosophical point that there can be a plausible case for an uncaused cause that is not God.
0
reply
Farm_Ecology
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
It can't be both, if something is created then it isn't eternal. For something to be eternal is has to have always existed, it is infinite. Even if said thing creates itself it isn't classed as eternal because at some point it didn't exist.
But thats the point. If we are talking about something that time is intrinsically tied to (i.e, the Universe), then it has always existed, and there never was a point where it didn't exist, simply because there never was a point before it: 'before' it would have no meaning.

In the case of the Universe (or something similar), the very concept and possibility of before and after was generated alongside it.
0
reply
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by Farm_Ecology)
But thats the point. If we are talking about something that time is intrinsically tied to (i.e, the Universe), then it has always existed, and there never was a point where it didn't exist, simply because there never was a point before it: 'before' it would have no meaning.

In the case of the Universe (or something similar), the very concept and possibility of before and after was generated alongside it.
Time as we know it never existed. But to say because time was created when the universe was created, nothing could have existed before the universe because there was no time is a bit silly.

Time as we know it is directly linked to our universe, so yes before time our universe never existed. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a universe before ours, with it's own local time and date of creation.

The only time we can say that nothing was before is if we're talking about something which has always existed.

I think you seem to think that nothing existed before the universe, well we know the big bang created the universe. The big bang was an event so it also came into existence.

The question as to what created the big bang can come from 1 of 2 things.

The big bang created itself thus giving the rise to other creation, or the energy that created the big bang always was.
0
reply
Farm_Ecology
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
Time as we know it never existed. But to say because time was created when the universe was created, nothing could have existed before the universe because there was no time is a bit silly.
Why is it silly? It might sound counter-intuitive though. But notions of before and after only relate to time. If time doesnt exist, there is no before and no after.

(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
Time as we know it is directly linked to our universe, so yes before time our universe never existed. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a universe before ours, with it's own local time and date of creation.
Sure, there could have been something before the Universe. But the point is, the existence of the Universe, doesnt in itself necessitate the need for something before it.

(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
The only time we can say that nothing was before is if we're talking about something which has always existed.
But again, thats the point, it would have always existed. If time is tied to the existence of the Universe, 'always' or 'eternity' would also be tied to the existence of the Universe. The very concept of 'always' would have no meaning outside of time, because there would simply be no 'time' for anything to exist in.

(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
I think you seem to think that nothing existed before the universe, well we know the big bang created the universe. The big bang was an event so it also came into existence.
That's not strictly true. The Big Bang came after the existence of the Universe. The Big Bang expanded the Universe.
0
reply
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#20
ok so let's us assume that universe collapses and goes back to a singularity for a million years. Then it explodes again ect, would the people living in the new universe have the right to say that nothing existed before there universe because there was no time?

I understand what you mean when you say time, unfortunately the word time was invented way way before time was considered to be something to do with the universe so we have no other kind of word to describe "time".

What if there was a universe before ours? That universe would of had time. The only time we can say that there is no time is if we conclude that the first thing to exist was created spontaneously and subsequently created time.

If something had always existed and never needed creating, then time also always existed.

I'm not sure what you're getting at but for us, the start of time is the start of the universe, for anything existing before the big bang time could be a billion years older, or a trillion years older. Our perception of time only applies to everything contained inside the universe, where our local time began.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (87)
13.92%
I'm not sure (30)
4.8%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (198)
31.68%
I have already dropped out (13)
2.08%
I'm not a current university student (297)
47.52%

Watched Threads

View All