The creation conundrum

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/space/7955379/The-universe-will-expand-forever-new-Nasa-study-on-dark-energy-concludes.html little read for you, it'sa tad old but nevertheless.

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.

x

All I know is that it is more likely for there to be no God than for there to be a God.
We know the universe exists, but don't know about anything before it; it's foolish to make guesses about something which we can never prove (as far as modern technology goes, anyway). I'm happy to take it as it is and say the universe spontaneously came into existence of its own accord (i.e. there was no creator) - because that's all we know and all we can prove.

If you asked me which is more likely, something having always existed and is eternal or something which created itself from absolutely nothing where nothing whatsoever existed before and is responsible for it's own existence... well I say they're both equally outrageous, yet one of them must be true.

It's mind crushing to try to imagine something like this, I can't see how you can possibly say one is more likely than the other when they're both equally incomprehensible to understand.

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?