Turn on thread page Beta

How did the Universe come in to existence? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Personally i believe that God created the universe. For oxygen levels on Earth to be just right and for forces like Gravity to be just right for mankind to exist couldn't be simply coincidental. Stephen Hawking one of the greatest scientists if not the greatest scientist of this generation once wrote "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” The Earth is so finely tuned for mankind to live that it couldn't be simply be based on chance there must have been a creator responsible for it all and hence also the universe. To think that the Universe was primarily a result of the big bang is illogical, for it to be this perfect simply defies probability.

    What do you believe? What was the result of the beginning of the Universe?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    More like why did this thread come into existence
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So the teleological argument basically. Yes I see what you mean. I personally often find people themselves are the most convincing evidence of the existence of God. The way people respond to the world around them - to art, love, suffering, justice. And then also the way people respond to talking about God, about sin, origins, reason, worldviews, these topics expose vulnerability that just make the case so compelling.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    Personally i believe that God created the universe. For oxygen levels on Earth to be just right and for forces like Gravity to be just right for mankind to exist couldn't be simply coincidental. Stephen Hawking one of the greatest scientists if not the greatest scientist of this generation once wrote "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” The Earth is so finely tuned for mankind to live that it couldn't be simply be based on chance there must have been a creator responsible for it all and hence also the universe. To think that the Universe was primarily a result of the big bang is illogical, for it to be this perfect simply defies probability.

    What do you believe? What was the result of the beginning of the Universe?
    I too believe God created the universe.

    I find it amazing that even famous names like Stephen Hawking refuse to acknowledge the hand of God in creation yet still are able to see the impossibility of it occurring otherwise.

    Unless you are fooled by the hoax of evolution. It is only by the hoax of evolution and it's necessity for the immeasurable billions of years that a veil is pulled across the eyes of those to the simple truth.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    I too believe God created the universe.

    I find it amazing that even famous names like Stephen Hawking refuse to acknowledge the hand of God in creation yet still are able to see the impossibility of it occurring otherwise.

    Honestly, it's pseudo-scientific nonsense like this that gives Christians a bad name. Evolution is a real, provable, scientific doctrine. Resisting it just makes Christians look so stupid.

    The OP on the other hand, makes an excellent point. Why did the universe suddenly happen?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    For oxygen levels on Earth to be just right and for forces like Gravity to be just right for mankind to exist couldn't be simply coincidental.
    What do you mean that oxygen levels are just right? The Earth's oxygen levels did not change for our benefit. Rather, we adapted to the conditions on Earth. One only needs to look at people who live at high altitudes. Most people struggle to breath at really high altitudes, but the peoples who have lived for generations at high altitudes have adapted to these conditions.

    You question would be like asking why the oxygen pressure at high altitudes is perfectly tuned so as to provide the best environment for people who live at high altitudes.


    Stephen Hawking one of the greatest scientists if not the greatest scientist of this generation once wrote "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.”
    The odds of winning the lottery are very small. But if millions of people play the lottery, there is a chance that someone may win. In fact, despite the odds, many people have won the lottery. Likewise, if there is infinite time and infinite numbers of universes, then it is perfectly possible that a universe such as ours would form.

    The Earth is so finely tuned for mankind to live that it couldn't be simply be based on chance there must have been a creator responsible for it all and hence also the universe. To think that the Universe was primarily a result of the big bang is illogical, for it to be this perfect simply defies probability.

    What do you believe? What was the result of the beginning of the Universe?
    So if someone told you they won the lottery, you would think it illogical because the odds are so small? That would be rather foolish as it is perfectly logical that someone would win the lottery, however it would be unlikely.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    if there is infinite time and infinite numbers of universes, then it is perfectly possible that a universe such as ours would form.

    .
    Is there any reason to believe in an infinitely old multiverse, with infinitely many universes?

    Edit: also the lottery analogy has a number of problems. For starters the chance of winning the lottery and the chance involved with specific values of constants within physics are world's apart. The argument is actually an appeal to improbability incomprehensibly small.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Is there any reason to believe in an infinitely old multiverse, with infinitely many universes?
    I could quite easily proffer the same question in regards to God.

    One of the problems I often see is that religious people often seem to fail to differentiate between improbable and impossible. Improbable events happen. The OP seems to describe an improbable event as not being possible. It is easiest to talk about such a thing over an infinite time scale to simplify things and prove that an improbable event can happen.

    But there is no reason why an infinite timescale would be needed. For example, if an event happening in our universe has a one in a trillion years chance of happening, there is no reason why a trillion years would have to pass before that event could happen, and it could quite possibly happen in the first millisecond of the Universe's existence.

    Edit: also the lottery analogy has a number of problems. For starters the chance of winning the lottery and the chance involved with specific values of constants within physics are world's apart. The argument is actually an appeal to improbability incomprehensibly small.
    Not at all. If we are comparing the chances of winning the lottery over a lifetime with another event that had an infinite amount of time to occur, the latter is more probable.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I could quite easily proffer the same question in regards to God.

    One of the problems I often see is that religious people often seem to fail to differentiate between improbable and impossible. Improbable events happen. The OP seems to describe an improbable event as not being possible. It is easiest to talk about such a thing over an infinite time scale to simplify things and prove that an improbable event can happen.

    But there is no reason why an infinite timescale would be needed. For example, if an event happening in our universe has a one in a trillion years chance of happening, there is no reason why a trillion years would have to pass before that event could happen, and it could quite possibly happen in the first millisecond of the Universe's existence.



    Not at all. If we are comparing the chances of winning the lottery over a lifetime with another event that had an infinite amount of time to occur, the latter is more probable.
    So you accept that the multiverse is posited as an answer to fine tuning, just as theism is, rather than having any independent reasons for it?

    I wont comment on generalising so broadly of religious people, but just point out that if you think the teleological argument from fine tuning is about it being impossible to happen by chance then you are mistaken. The sheer, overwhelming improbability of a life permitting universe calls for explanation and the argument is that theism is a better explanation that chance.

    So, by noting that its possible for the universe to be such a way doesnt address or answer the argument. Bare possibility doesnt cut it by itself in terms of best explaining the phenomenon.

    Im also not sure what your point about the lottery is. Its taken as a given by many physicists that over an infinite amount of time every possible event will happen. To use this as a reply to fine tuning can only be with the parameters of a multiverse. But thats the question. Apart from sheer chance that happened at the birth of the universe, the only viable option from chance is the multiverse. So any analogy to a lottery, if it is to have any explanatory power, will need to be cashed out within the theory of a multiverse. Simply alluding to a lottery type situation, without the help of infinite universes, is worthless.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Well whoever created it probably did it in a Big Bang, if they could create something so sophisticated I doubt they'd take their time on it. Just do it in one go
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    Personally i believe that God created the universe. For oxygen levels on Earth to be just right and for forces like Gravity to be just right for mankind to exist couldn't be simply coincidental. Stephen Hawking one of the greatest scientists if not the greatest scientist of this generation once wrote "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” The Earth is so finely tuned for mankind to live that it couldn't be simply be based on chance there must have been a creator responsible for it all and hence also the universe. To think that the Universe was primarily a result of the big bang is illogical, for it to be this perfect simply defies probability.

    What do you believe? What was the result of the beginning of the Universe?
    You seem to be taking the line that the earth is perfect for humans instead of humans are perfectly adapted to earth.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Honestly, it's pseudo-scientific nonsense like this that gives Christians a bad name. Evolution is a real, provable, scientific doctrine. Resisting it just makes Christians look so stupid.

    The OP on the other hand, makes an excellent point. Why did the universe suddenly happen?
    "Evolution is scientifically proven"
    -In the same way in the the atom was proven as indivisible before 20th century. Now we know that an atom can be divided

    -In the same way it was proven in 16th century that Newtons Laws of Motion could be applied to the whole Universe. Einstein came along and proved that these laws are only applicable to this world.

    -In the same way, currently evolution is proven, however, after some time, it will be proven that we didn't come from chimps.

    A noted and unbiased scientist will never accept anything as the final truth.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    Personally i believe that God created the universe. For oxygen levels on Earth to be just right and for forces like Gravity to be just right for mankind to exist couldn't be simply coincidental. Stephen Hawking one of the greatest scientists if not the greatest scientist of this generation once wrote "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” The Earth is so finely tuned for mankind to live that it couldn't be simply be based on chance there must have been a creator responsible for it all and hence also the universe. To think that the Universe was primarily a result of the big bang is illogical, for it to be this perfect simply defies probability.

    What do you believe? What was the result of the beginning of the Universe?
    Fam, there is no need to argue. Just ask the atheists where a molecule of DNA came from, and their heads will be spinning.

    Even Dawkins said something silly like "it come onto earth from a meteor which was carrying it"
    Bruh, and how did the DNA get on the meteor? No reply
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    So you accept that the multiverse is posited as an answer to fine tuning, just as theism is, rather than having any independent reasons for it?
    The OP is claiming to have a reason for making the claim that God exists. I have only been rebutting this claim as it is fallacious to claim the improbable is impossible.

    I wont comment on generalising so broadly of religious people
    I didn't say all religious people. I spoke from experience and stated that "I often see", as oppose to saying "most" or "all" religious people. I haven't claimed my experience to be a universally true principle. However, I personally cannot count the number of times religious people have in conversation with me, confused impossible and improbable, and the OP is an example of this.

    but just point out that if you think the teleological argument from fine tuning is about it being impossible to happen by chance then you are mistaken. The sheer, overwhelming improbability of a life permitting universe calls for explanation
    I never claimed the teleological argument concludes it is impossible. My issue is the OP starts talking about the Fine Tuning argument, and then following it up with the statement " it couldn't be simply be based on chance", which is to say it is impossible.

    the argument is that theism is a better explanation that chance.
    What proof is there that God exists? There is plenty of proof that improbable events happen. Improbable events happen all the time. There is far more evidence for improbable events than there is for or against God's existence. Why should something being improbable necessitate God?

    So, by noting that its possible for the universe to be such a way doesnt address or answer the argument. Bare possibility doesnt cut it by itself in terms of best explaining the phenomenon.
    But the OP is doing just that. He is saying "this is improbable; therefore God." The fact is we don't need God to explain improbable events. Why is God necessary to explain improbable events, but not probable events?

    Im also not sure what your point about the lottery is. Its taken as a given by many physicists that over an infinite amount of time every possible event will happen. To use this as a reply to fine tuning can only be with the parameters of a multiverse. But thats the question. Apart from sheer chance that happened at the birth of the universe, the only viable option from chance is the multiverse. So any analogy to a lottery, if it is to have any explanatory power, will need to be cashed out within the theory of a multiverse. Simply alluding to a lottery type situation, without the help of infinite universes, is worthless.
    Not only the multiverse. We could inhabit an oscillating universe. There are a number of theories out there.

    The lottery example is to prove that improbable events do happen. You then mentioned how the conditions are worlds apart, which fails to take account of the time period we could possibly be dealing with, namely infinity, which would completely change the possibility of an event occurring.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    OP you're failing to acknowledge how improbable a being like God existing is. And what created such a perfect being as God? And so on? How far back are you going to take it? There is no evidence at all for God existing so it's illogical to believe so. And what type of God are you talking about: a God of scripture or just a creator God?

    Furthermore, you show a big misunderstanding of evolution. The Earth didn't form with these conditions so that we could live on it, we merely adapted to the pre-existing conditions on Earth. You're right, nothing was coincidental. We survive so well on Earth now because evolution necessitated that we adapt in this way - if we didn't, then humans will have likely died out a long time ago.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    The OP is claiming to have a reason for making the claim that God exists. I have only been rebutting this claim as it is fallacious to claim the improbable is impossible.



    I didn't say all religious people. I spoke from experience and stated that "I often see", as oppose to saying "most" or "all" religious people. I haven't claimed my experience to be a universally true principle. However, I personally cannot count the number of times religious people have in conversation with me, confused impossible and improbable, and the OP is an example of this.



    I never claimed the teleological argument concludes it is impossible. My issue is the OP starts talking about the Fine Tuning argument, and then following it up with the statement " it couldn't be simply be based on chance", which is to say it is impossible.



    What proof is there that God exists? There is plenty of proof that improbable events happen. Improbable events happen all the time. There is far more evidence for improbable events than there is for or against God's existence. Why should something being improbable necessitate God?



    But the OP is doing just that. He is saying "this is improbable; therefore God." The fact is we don't need God to explain improbable events. Why is God necessary to explain improbable events, but not probable events?



    Not only the multiverse. We could inhabit an oscillating universe. There are a number of theories out there.

    The lottery example is to prove that improbable events do happen. You then mentioned how the conditions are worlds apart, which fails to take account of the time period we could possibly be dealing with, namely infinity, which would completely change the possibility of an event occurring.
    Perhaps you could point out his claim that 'the improbable is impossible'? Ive reread the OP and cant see how he makes that claim. He seems to be in line with the typical version of the argument, which is an inference to the best explanation, nothing to do with impossibilities.

    If you whole point in thinking he is saying its impossible is based on the part where he says 'it couldnt simply be based on chance' then i think you are being uncharitable. It seems obvious to me at least that he is expressing his opinion, that he strongly doubts fine tuning can be explained by chance. Lets see if he comments on what he meant, but until then it neednt be assumed that is what he meant.

    The fine tuning version of the teleological argument cannot be a proof of God's existence as it is based on inference. So the question of why an improbable event would necessitate God is moot. Its whether the weight of the evidence falls on one hypothesis or another. It has nothing to do with having only on possible hypothesis.

    The problem with pointing out the sheer existence of improbable events is it is far too vague. Theres a number of things that could be said in reply, like comparing the differing odds of fine tuning with examples given to make chance seem a plausible hypothesis, but a main issue is that it simply isnt the way to reason hypothesis. When thinking about one way of comparing chance to design as explanations, the question is; 'given theism how likely is it that we would see fine tuning? Given chance how likely is it that we would see fine tuning? How do the two compare?'

    An illustration is given by John Leslie. Imagine you are about to be put to death by shooting. You are blind folded and tied to a post so you cant move. There are ten machine guns aimed at you, 20 metres away and they fire 200 rounds each. After they finish shooting, you realise you are alive. In fact, you are completely untouched! You turn to see the entire wall peppered with bullet holes, except your silhouette. We know the bullets all missed, whats the best explanation? That the trained soldiers aiming all missed by chance or on purpose?

    Purpose is obviously the better hypothesis. This is why to say 'The fact is we don't need God to explain improbable events. Why is God necessary to explain improbable events, but not probable events?' Is beside the point. Some improbable events, like the lottery do not need to be explained by appealing to purpose. Other improbable events, like obtaining 20 royal flushes in a row, are obviously much better explained by purpose. The teleological argument attempts to reason that fine tuning is best explained as purpose rather than chance.

    Its also true that an expanding and contracting universe is another model which beefs up the chance hypothesis. I cant think of any other model apart from those variations and multiverse ones. The next question would be how likely are these scenarios and is there evidence against them?

    If the chance hypothesis is to have any weight it probably needs some type of model like those. Without infinitely many tries, the lottery analogy is moot, which shifts the focus on whether those models are likely true or not.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    Personally i believe that God created the universe. For oxygen levels on Earth to be just right and for forces like Gravity to be just right for mankind to exist couldn't be simply coincidental. Stephen Hawking one of the greatest scientists if not the greatest scientist of this generation once wrote "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” The Earth is so finely tuned for mankind to live that it couldn't be simply be based on chance there must have been a creator responsible for it all and hence also the universe. To think that the Universe was primarily a result of the big bang is illogical, for it to be this perfect simply defies probability.

    What do you believe? What was the result of the beginning of the Universe?
    Stephen Hawking explains it using the weak Anthropic argument. You could be right though a mystical SuperApe could have magicked this entire universe into existence from nothing, just to satisfy an ancient book of human myths.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    I too believe God created the universe.

    I find it amazing that even famous names like Stephen Hawking refuse to acknowledge the hand of God in creation yet still are able to see the impossibility of it occurring otherwise.

    Unless you are fooled by the hoax of evolution. It is only by the hoax of evolution and it's necessity for the immeasurable billions of years that a veil is pulled across the eyes of those to the simple truth.
    Wrong once again, instead of using quote mining, try to find out exactly what Hawking has claimed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingYusHalo)
    "Evolution is scientifically proven"
    -In the same way in the the atom was proven as indivisible before 20th century. Now we know that an atom can be divided

    -In the same way it was proven in 16th century that Newtons Laws of Motion could be applied to the whole Universe. Einstein came along and proved that these laws are only applicable to this world.

    -In the same way, currently evolution is proven, however, after some time, it will be proven that we didn't come from chimps.

    A noted and unbiased scientist will never accept anything as the final truth.
    The Atom was considered indivisible, it is in fact what the word means, science may have got it wrong but it has been corrected. Exactly the same as the Theory of Evolution, it is not a finished Theory but it is still a fact.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Honestly, it's pseudo-scientific nonsense like this that gives Christians a bad name. Evolution is a real, provable, scientific doctrine. Resisting it just makes Christians look so stupid.

    The OP on the other hand, makes an excellent point. Why did the universe suddenly happen?
    You understand what you've said is pseudo-science, right?

    The geological record shows the simplest organisms occur in the oldest areas of the earth while the more complex organisms are more recent arrivals. We can see regional specialization.

    All this suggests that evolution -probably- resulted in the species we have today and is the best explanation.

    It is evidence - compelling, certainly, but not ironclad.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 12, 2016
The home of Results and Clearing

965

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.