The origins of the universe

[Aidanbuk]

Hello. Here goes, as of now, I am inclined to believe a creator. I'd like to note this is through my own opinion, my family is not religious nor are any of my friends to my knowledge. In regards to the big bang theory, it is logical to me to assume that it came to occur as a result of a scientific reaction, however complex. I'm not great at science so not very well aquatinted with the specifics. However, my argument is who created the science behind the big bang? As in who made the scientific properties necassery for the reaction? And who created them before? Nothing can exist out of nothing to my knowledge (unless an actual infinity). Therefore, there are two possibilities to me. An infinite regress of causes and effects, which is incomprehensible (if my inference is correct that an actual infinity is impossible), or there is a necessary creator, who has always existed and who always will exit, which is once again, incomprehensible to us. I'm more inclined to the creator idea, due to the religious scripture from before our time and before such ideas could be formed regarding infinite regress etc. Any input would be greatly valuable, I've been really wanting to ask this question for a while. What is your opinion? Infinite regress, scientific reaction allowing something to come out of nothing (I fail to see how I could agree with this), or a creator? Thank you

[Erk]

I don't see the notion of an eternal creator being hard to imagine. I see the notion of it or anything else coming from absolutely nothing as being a much more difficult idea to work with.

[osgart]

Did the universe have a beginning, or is it eternal itself? The latest science , i think says, eternal inflation had a beginning from possibly some eternal state in the past. You can google alan guth! And eternal inflation.

I think your reasoning is coming toward the cosmological argument, of which there are a number of them. Generally considering the universe as beginning to exist, and anything that begins to exist has a cause, an infinite regress is also considered impossible, therefore an uncaused cause must exist; the prime mover.

Also you could check into the multiverse theory, and also the no boundary proposal proposed by stephen hawking.

I think it was lawrence krauss who wrote a book, ' The Universe from Nothing' , nothing being fluctuations in a quantum vaccuum.

Me personally, i like the cosmological argument.

I think modern cosmology carries a lot of indirect evidences, and relies heavily on math. Dark matter, and dark energy constitue 98 percent of the universe and science knows almost nothing about it other than that these things exist.

[QuantumT]

I'm not great at science so not very well aquatinted with the specifics.

That makes it very hard to propose my elegant solution to it all.
To accept the legitimacy and elegance of my proposal, you need to know the basics of all sciences.
If you don't, you will be unable to verify the specifics, and you will also be more inclined to only trust the most peer approved sources.
In other words, when I tell you the solution, you will be most likely to deny it. Most people do. Even smart and educated people.

That been said, my proposal is supported by all sciences, and a growing number of researchers. It makes perfect mathematical sense. It even explains the mysteries of our universe. And it has creators.

Here it comes: We are probably living in a very advanced computer simulation!

[-1-]

I'm not great at science so not very well aquatinted with the specifics.

(not being great at science and not being acquainted with the specifics) makes it very hard to propose my elegant solution to it all.

Au Contraire!!

"God created the heaven and the earth. " Sheer elegance in its simplicity, in its power of expression. Occam's razor at its best.

To the heck with quarks and atoms and fields and black hoes and dark matter and hidden energy, and e=mcc and conversation of energy and momentum, and entropy and Schroedinger's cat. "Let there be light." This resonates with the cosmos both cosmologically and psychologically.

[QuantumT]

Au Contraire!!

"God created the heaven and the earth. " Sheer elegance in its simplicity, in its power of expression. Occam's razor at its best.

I like: "And the Admin hit Enter" better. Any notion of divinity and eternal entities, and I'm out!
But on the point of simplicity and the razor - we agree.

To the heck with quarks and atoms and fields and black hoes and dark matter and hidden energy, and e=mcc and conversation of energy and momentum, and entropy and Schroedinger's cat. "Let there be light." This resonates with the cosmos both cosmologically and psychologically.

Please don't talk bad about all my friends

[-1-]

Au Contraire!!

"God created the heaven and the earth. " Sheer elegance in its simplicity, in its power of expression. Occam's razor at its best.

I like: "And the Admin hit Enter" better. Any notion of divinity and eternal entities, and I'm out!
But on the point of simplicity and the razor - we agree.

To the heck with quarks and atoms and fields and black hoes and dark matter and hidden energy, and e=mcc and conversation of energy and momentum, and entropy and Schroedinger's cat. "Let there be light." This resonates with the cosmos both cosmologically and psychologically.

Please don't talk bad about all my friends

You have catty friends. I see where you pick up your trends.

BTW, this is the instance through which I had realized that this is proof of the falsehood of razor's edge. Whether an explanation of a phenomenon is explained shorter or longer, simpler or more complexly, than its alternative(s), has nothing to do which is a closer explanation to truth. Occam's razor is a moot point, it's redundant and it's not reliable at all.

[QuantumT]

You have catty friends. I see where you pick up your trends.

BTW, this is the instance through which I had realized that this is proof of the falsehood of razor's edge. Whether an explanation of a phenomenon is explained shorter or longer, simpler or more complexly, than its alternative(s), has nothing to do which is a closer explanation to truth. Occam's razor is a moot point, it's redundant and it's not reliable at all.

Ockham's Razor is not about science as we know it. It's about hypothesises and explanations.
So the razor works wine, if you use it where it's intended

[-1-]

You have catty friends. I see where you pick up your trends.

BTW, this is the instance through which I had realized that this is proof of the falsehood of razor's edge. Whether an explanation of a phenomenon is explained shorter or longer, simpler or more complexly, than its alternative(s), has nothing to do which is a closer explanation to truth. Occam's razor is a moot point, it's redundant and it's not reliable at all.

Ockham's Razor is not about science as we know it. It's about hypothesises and explanations.
So the razor works wine, if you use it where it's intended

I wish you'd give this thought a thorough once-over. I'm not going to try to influence you, Little Grasshopper, because I don't want to end up like Socrates or like Bruce Lee. It's better if you work it out on your own. "When the student is ready, she becomes her own teacher."

[QuantumT]

I wish you'd give this thought a thorough once-over. I'm not going to try to influence you, Little Grasshopper, because I don't want to end up like Socrates or like Bruce Lee. It's better if you work it out on your own. "When the student is ready, she becomes her own teacher."

I see you're still struggling to get out of the pot

[RG1]

Therefore, there are two possibilities to me. An infinite regress of causes and effects, which is incomprehensible (if my inference is correct that an actual infinity is impossible), or there is a necessary creator, who has always existed and who always will exit, which is once again, incomprehensible to us.

Problems:

1. Infinite regress of cause and effect -- if so, then there would be no universe, as the starting point would never happen, we would still be waiting (an infinite amount of time) for the universe to be created.

2. Necessary creator -- if he has always existed, then why not just keep it simple (via Occam's Razor) and just say that the universe has always existed? Certainly that has to be more plausible then claiming that some God created the universe (by some means, and out of nothing).

There seems to be only one plausible answer: The universe (and the stuff within it) have always existed.

[-1-]

I see you're still struggling to get out of the pot

!!!

[Noax]

In other words, when I tell you the solution, you will be most likely to deny it. Most people do. Even smart and educated people.

Especially them.

Here it comes: We are probably living in a very advanced computer simulation!

This isn't a solution to the problem any more than any other 'creator' solution. OK, so we are a very advanced computer simulation. How do you explain the origin of that?

[QuantumT]

Especially them.

Well, if you investigate which kind of people who are most averted towards such an idea, it's the medium intelligent ones. This group of people are very sure of their knowledge and have very strict limitations to what they accept as possible. This group is approximately in the IQ range of 110-130. When we get above 130 we tend to find much more open minded people, who are not so sure at all. They are capable of grasping possibilities that most people struggle with, and they are not afraid to "lose their grip" on consensus reality.

OK, so we are a very advanced computer simulation. How do you explain the origin of that?

We can only speculate. It's not the job of science to investigate the uninvestigatable. A different universe is not our territory. Human science starts with the big bang, stays in this universe, and ends with the death of the last scientist.

[surreptitious57]

you investigate which kind of people who are most averted towards such an idea it is the medium intelligent ones. This group of people are very
sure of their knowledge and have very strict limitations to what they accept as possible. This group is approximately in the IQ range of 110 - 130

I am in that group and am not sure of anything I think I know outside of mathematics which is deductive so deals with what is definitively true
I reject nothing absolutely other than that that has been falsified and for everything else I am relatively open minded depending on what it is