Some might argue that Earth’s existence implies the existence of a creator. Assuming that was true, wouldn’t the existence of this creator imply the existence of a second creator for the first?
It is not merely the existence of the earth that implies it, but the fact that it has a beginning. There’s other evidence in physics and thermodynamics that the universe’s beginning could be explained with an external trigger. The fact that the universe does not stretch endlessly into the past, and there’s a beginning of “time” does allude to the possibility of a creator.
This logic may not apply to the creator themselves, as there’s no evidence that they have a beginning too, and they don’t need one to be a creator. In fact, it makes more sense that they don’t.
But this is all very hand wavy in the end. I don’t mean to say it is certain. But I do think there’s a good argument for it.
One of the primary assertions of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe has a beginning, and it is thus far the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of the universe.
Also please tone down the passive aggression. No one said anything about magic, and this isn’t Reddit :)
But that’s a theory isn’t it? I haven’t seen any scientific theories to gods how do we know anything about a god, much less what the nature of their being? It’s just not based on anything, (therefore my allusions to magic)
I don’t enjoy your tone policing… There are ways to do that without sounding pretentious and holier than though, please keep that in mind for the next time.
Yes it is a scientific theory (not a hypothesis), which means it is the widely accepted explanation by scientists.
You’re right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe. What I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion. If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow. What kickstarted it is by definition its creator. And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.
This does not reveal the nature of the creator or anything about them. It is merely a statement that they must exist. An effect must have a cause.
I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.
Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.
You’re right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe.
How so? I don’t see what you mean here, it doesn’t explain anything, it just builds a level of assumptions on top of something, basically explaining something with an untested hypothesis.
what I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion.
If you Agree to the premises I guess, but I don’t, so it explains nothing.
If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow.
Then who kickstarted god? Or does he/she/it for some reason get special treatment here? (This is special pleading)
What kickstarted it is by definition its creator.
If I kick a stone down a hill I did not create the stone even though I set it in motion.
And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.
Hmm, I don’t see how you evade an infinite regression here, unless you break your own rules and give one link in the chain an “eternal always existing” modifier. We don’t know that anything eternal exist, or even that our universe isn’t eternal (extisting eternally as a singularity before spreading or a part of a bigger multiverse that we cannot perceive)
It is merely a statement that they must exist.
It is just assuming that something must exist, since you’re building your logic on very shaky premises that we cannot prove.
An effect must have a cause.
Must it? Or have we just never seen the contrary (black swan fallacy) Who caused god? like I said before you can’t get away from that without special pleading.
I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.
Water under the bridge :) No worries :)
Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.
No worries, I don’t care about the votes, interactions are worth way more than someone clicking an arrow :)
One of the primary assertions of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe has a beginning, and it is thus far the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of the universe.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but please bear with me: this statement is quite incorrect except in the most colloquial sense of the term “beginning.” The big bang describes the processes that led to what we understand as the current presentation of the universe. It does not offer any explanation about the actual origins of the matter and energy that make up the universe; in fact, it requires that they were already present in an extremely hot and dense state for the initial expansion to occur. This is a common misconception among theists and non-scientists and it’s a bit nuanced, but it’s really important. To state in a different way that might more directly counter your statement: my understanding is that the energy and matter that we observe as making up the universe has always existed, and there is no scientific theory that I’m aware of that claims it hasn’t.
Also please tone down the passive aggression. No one said anything about magic, and this isn’t Reddit :)
Speculating about the supposed properties of a creator of the universe that has no evidence of existing is pretty useless. You might as well be talking about magic.
Is it true that the Big Bang asserts that the universe had a beginning? True, we don’t know much about the pre-Big Bang universe, but we don’t have a reason to think that it didn’t exist.
It is not merely the existence of the earth that implies it, but the fact that it has a beginning. There’s other evidence in physics and thermodynamics that the universe’s beginning could be explained with an external trigger. The fact that the universe does not stretch endlessly into the past, and there’s a beginning of “time” does allude to the possibility of a creator.
This logic may not apply to the creator themselves, as there’s no evidence that they have a beginning too, and they don’t need one to be a creator. In fact, it makes more sense that they don’t.
But this is all very hand wavy in the end. I don’t mean to say it is certain. But I do think there’s a good argument for it.
Why do you think the universe needs a beginning, but there are special rules for your god because of?.. magic?
One of the primary assertions of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe has a beginning, and it is thus far the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of the universe.
Also please tone down the passive aggression. No one said anything about magic, and this isn’t Reddit :)
But that’s a theory isn’t it? I haven’t seen any scientific theories to gods how do we know anything about a god, much less what the nature of their being? It’s just not based on anything, (therefore my allusions to magic)
I don’t enjoy your tone policing… There are ways to do that without sounding pretentious and holier than though, please keep that in mind for the next time.
Yes it is a scientific theory (not a hypothesis), which means it is the widely accepted explanation by scientists.
You’re right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe. What I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion. If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow. What kickstarted it is by definition its creator. And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.
This does not reveal the nature of the creator or anything about them. It is merely a statement that they must exist. An effect must have a cause.
I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.
Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.
How so? I don’t see what you mean here, it doesn’t explain anything, it just builds a level of assumptions on top of something, basically explaining something with an untested hypothesis.
If you Agree to the premises I guess, but I don’t, so it explains nothing.
Then who kickstarted god? Or does he/she/it for some reason get special treatment here? (This is special pleading)
If I kick a stone down a hill I did not create the stone even though I set it in motion.
Hmm, I don’t see how you evade an infinite regression here, unless you break your own rules and give one link in the chain an “eternal always existing” modifier. We don’t know that anything eternal exist, or even that our universe isn’t eternal (extisting eternally as a singularity before spreading or a part of a bigger multiverse that we cannot perceive)
It is just assuming that something must exist, since you’re building your logic on very shaky premises that we cannot prove.
Must it? Or have we just never seen the contrary (black swan fallacy) Who caused god? like I said before you can’t get away from that without special pleading.
Water under the bridge :) No worries :)
No worries, I don’t care about the votes, interactions are worth way more than someone clicking an arrow :)
This may seem like splitting hairs, but please bear with me: this statement is quite incorrect except in the most colloquial sense of the term “beginning.” The big bang describes the processes that led to what we understand as the current presentation of the universe. It does not offer any explanation about the actual origins of the matter and energy that make up the universe; in fact, it requires that they were already present in an extremely hot and dense state for the initial expansion to occur. This is a common misconception among theists and non-scientists and it’s a bit nuanced, but it’s really important. To state in a different way that might more directly counter your statement: my understanding is that the energy and matter that we observe as making up the universe has always existed, and there is no scientific theory that I’m aware of that claims it hasn’t.
Speculating about the supposed properties of a creator of the universe that has no evidence of existing is pretty useless. You might as well be talking about magic.
Is it true that the Big Bang asserts that the universe had a beginning? True, we don’t know much about the pre-Big Bang universe, but we don’t have a reason to think that it didn’t exist.