Log in

View Full Version : If God Created the Universe, Who Created God?


Al Farabi
December 8th, 2008, 01:15 AM
Or alternately, What Caused the Big Bang?

It is evident through observation that all events need causes. Aristotle thought that it was something called the First Cause (in latin, Primum Movens): "something which moves itself, but is not itself moved." I agree. I think the First Cause was God.

What do you think?

tagnostic
December 8th, 2008, 01:20 AM
it gets a little circular at that point,
who caused the first cause that caused god?
and what caused that?

gets too weird for me, (which is saying alot)

Loki
December 8th, 2008, 01:36 AM
Ah yes - the "keep you up all night going insane" question :D

Simple answer - I have no idea.

I'm agnostic - that's because I can't find a definite answer to those questions.

Nothing existed before the Big Bang! (No - I can't accept that :D)

God created everything! No - sorry, I can't accept that one as well.

Aaaargh! I have no idea and it drives me nuts not knowing!

Look at the theories - God made it or everything came out of nothing.
I need weed!

Tsar Phalanxia
December 8th, 2008, 12:05 PM
There was no "before" the Big Bang, as reality, and that includes time, did not exist before that moment. It's hard to grasp, because we are so used to the fourth dimension continuously moving at the same speed (relatively), that the concept of a "before time" seems totally weird to us.

Loki
December 8th, 2008, 02:23 PM
Do you know of the Fermi Paradox?

I'd say this is the same.
And it still does my head in :D

rzm61
December 8th, 2008, 02:28 PM
Who created god?

Man?

sudikics
December 8th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Tsar and tag are right.

1. What created God? Did God just appear? If so, why couldn't the universe "just appear"?

2. Some idea floating on the cusp of modern science suggest that we live in a 5-D braneworld. (Note: this relies on string theory, which is currently untested and unproved.)Colliding branes would send shockwaves of energy throught he branes, potentially creating a Big Bang.

3. Stephen Hawking is a proponent of the idea that our universe grew out of a "mother universe" and a space of true vacuum. He postulates that There are many universes beyond our own, and there are pockes of true vacuum between them. As the universes move farther apart, parts fo the true vacuum convert into false vacuum, making a new universe.

4. I like the idea that just maybe the universe did make itself. Many subatomic particles have enormously long shelf lives. It is possible, using quantum flucuations, that the energy of a few of those particles colliding could have been sent back in time and caused the formation fo the universe. Alernatively, from Wheeler's delayed choice experiments, we know that anytime a sbatomic particle is observed, we pin down its history. This splits off an alternate timeline.

Our very observations of the world around us have caused the birth of millions of new timeline and parallel universes.

Because each universe is in its own timeline, probability plays out differently in each one. In one universe, your coin might land on heads, in another, it might land on tails.

In several, it might have caused an explosion which would form another universe in which sentient lifeforms would evolve and wonder what caused their universe to form.

http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/mind_of_god.PNG

Dr Goofy Mofo
December 8th, 2008, 09:02 PM
Alot of xians answer that with he willed himself into existance or he just always was.

If that is the case I would have willed my self into existance ages ago.

What started the big bang... god lit a fart or a fire cracker. With this philosphy I can go in to each god was created from another. The only problem is where did the first world come from.

None of this is my beliefs but they are fun to think about.

bouchie
December 8th, 2008, 09:49 PM
Isn't there a scientist that showed that gas particles don't need a cause to move?

Al Farabi
December 8th, 2008, 11:28 PM
That doesn't work with conservation of energy. Where are they getting the energy to move?

tagnostic
December 8th, 2008, 11:32 PM
That doesn't work with conservation of energy. Where are they getting the energy to move?

global warming? ;)

sudikics
December 8th, 2008, 11:43 PM
That doesn't work with conservation of energy. Where are they getting the energy to move?
I think bouchie means that chaos theory makes it impossible to determine a clear cause for any given particle's movement.

Fallen Hero
December 8th, 2008, 11:45 PM
In philosophy there is something called a necessary being. They have no start or end and are the cause of all things at the most removed and fundamental of layers. This is the universe. There is no before time, the universe always was in some form or another.

Al Farabi
December 8th, 2008, 11:45 PM
lack of clear cause and lack of cause are pretty different...

Al Farabi
December 8th, 2008, 11:46 PM
In philosophy there is something called a necessary being. They have no start or end and are the cause of all things at the most removed and fundamental of layers. This is the universe. There is no before time, the universe always was in some form or another.

In this case, entropy is false.

sudikics
December 8th, 2008, 11:46 PM
lack of clear cause and lack of cause are pretty different...
Yes, but the internetz are serious business, so there you go.

Fallen Hero
December 8th, 2008, 11:54 PM
In this case, entropy is false.

How so? Care to explain why? My understanding is that the universe would remain a closed system (nothing outside the universe can reactions within it) thus entropy can still apply.

The Good Reverend Roger
December 8th, 2008, 11:56 PM
Or alternately, What Caused the Big Bang?

It is evident through observation that all events need causes. Aristotle thought that it was something called the First Cause (in latin, Primum Movens): "something which moves itself, but is not itself moved." I agree. I think the First Cause was God.

What do you think?

"Bob" created God. But he was provoked.

Loki
December 9th, 2008, 12:03 AM
"Bob" created God. But he was provoked.

Slacker!

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 12:05 AM
How so? Care to explain why? My understanding is that the universe would remain a closed system (nothing outside the universe can reactions within it) thus entropy can still apply.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy in a closed system must always increase if work is done (read: if anything happens). This continues until total entropy is reached - all energy in the system is completely evenly distributed, and everything lies in equilibrium.

It also states that no useful work can be done in a system in equilibrium, because useful work must increase entropy, and if the system is already in equilibrium, this is not possible.

The universe is a closed system, so given the infinite time that a universe without beginning would logically have had, that universe would have to have reached equilibrium, putting a stop to all energy transfer, and thus all useful work.

Based on the observable fact that we are doing things, this is false.

So either entropy is false, or the universe without beginning is.

tagnostic
December 9th, 2008, 12:15 AM
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy in a closed system must always increase if work is done (read: if anything happens). This continues until total entropy is reached - all energy in the system is completely evenly distributed, and everything lies in equilibrium.

stipulated

It also states that no useful work can be done in a system in equilibrium, because useful work must increase entropy, and if the system is already in equilibrium, this is not possible.

would that then postulate that anything done is !entropic therefore there is no entropy?
or there is no equilibrium?


The universe is a closed system, so given the infinite time that a universe without beginning would logically have had, that universe would have to have reached equilibrium, putting a stop to all energy transfer, and thus all useful work.

how do you reach the conclusion that the universe is a closed system?


Based on the observable fact that we are doing things, this is false.

observed,, rears it's ugly head :D


So either entropy is false, or the universe without beginning is.

or we just lack data?

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 12:34 AM
would that then postulate that anything done is !entropic therefore there is no entropy?
or there is no equilibrium?

Here's how it works:

For anything to happen, you have to introduce two systems which are not in quilibrium with each other. The difference creates Work. For example, if you touch a red hot knife to a cool knife, and the hot one cools off a bit, and the cool one heats up a bit. If the knives were equal temperature, nothing would happen. This principle is applicable, so says the 2nd law, to all thermodynamic events.

This means that the total energy of the universe (which is assumed to be a closed system) tends to even out over time. Given enough time, all things would be in energy equilibrium -maximum entropy- and, well, things no longer happen.

how do you reach the conclusion that the universe is a closed system?

Okay true, if we take the existance of a superuniversal world, we eliminate the problem. God, perhaps, supplies more juice?

sudikics
December 9th, 2008, 12:44 AM
Okay true, if we take the existance of a superuniversal world, we eliminate the problem. God, perhaps, supplies more juice?
My two cents:

This is why physics has the concepts of true and false vacuums. A false vacuum contains no matter, but particles pop in and out of existence in it. They appear in pairs (e.g. a quark and an anti-quark) and usually quickly annihilate each other very quickly. However, it's possible that somethign could go awry (e.g. a black holes sucks in one of the particles so they can't annihilate) and you could potentially get interesting results, like a huge explosion.

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 12:49 AM
based on that, are we deciding that teh universe is not a closed system? Or that Law #2 is false?

Dr Goofy Mofo
December 9th, 2008, 01:39 AM
The 2nd law has to be a closed system, the question lies in do you think the universe is a closed system?

rmw
December 9th, 2008, 02:12 AM
Fuck--I knew I should've majored in physics...

bouchie
December 9th, 2008, 03:19 PM
That doesn't work with conservation of energy. Where are they getting the energy to move? Apparently it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Scientific_positions

I'm no expert on this, so, I could be totally off-base here.

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 06:01 PM
Heat. A highly entropic and highly available form of energy.

if heat transfer is the cause of the movement, then it isn't causeless, right?

Also, it's unlikely that the universe will reach thermal equilibrium in any finite amount of time due to the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

True. However, if the universe had no beginning, there has been an infinite amount of time already.

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 09:03 PM
This is a tricky thing. If spacetime didn't exist before the big bang, how can any time have passed before it?

True. If the universe has a beginning, then an infinite amount of time hass not passes, and we are okay.

However, I was actually talking about this post:

In philosophy there is something called a necessary being. They have no start or end and are the cause of all things at the most removed and fundamental of layers. This is the universe. There is no before time, the universe always was in some form or another.

Which, I think we have pretty much established, is a view of the universe not reconcilable with the second law.

And as Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Stanley_Eddington) said, "if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope."

Fallen Hero
December 10th, 2008, 07:11 AM
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy in a closed system must always increase if work is done (read: if anything happens). This continues until total entropy is reached - all energy in the system is completely evenly distributed, and everything lies in equilibrium.

It also states that no useful work can be done in a system in equilibrium, because useful work must increase entropy, and if the system is already in equilibrium, this is not possible.

The universe is a closed system, so given the infinite time that a universe without beginning would logically have had, that universe would have to have reached equilibrium, putting a stop to all energy transfer, and thus all useful work.

Based on the observable fact that we are doing things, this is false.

So either entropy is false, or the universe without beginning is.

However, the univers also has no end. Thus it is not necessary that equillibrium has been attained. To determine this we would first have to establish how large the universe (not the known universe) is.

if heat transfer is the cause of the movement, then it isn't causeless, right?



True. However, if the universe had no beginning, there has been an infinite amount of time already.

And there is an infinte time which still can pass.

True. If the universe has a beginning, then an infinite amount of time hass not passes, and we are okay.

However, I was actually talking about this post:



Which, I think we have pretty much established, is a view of the universe not reconcilable with the second law.

And as Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Stanley_Eddington) said, "if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope."

I do not see how it disobeys the second law of thermodynamics. The simple way to refute your claim that it does is to insist that equilibrium has not been attained. (I am not an expert in this field so feel free to explain to me why this does not make sense)

The reason why I insist that the universe is a closed system is because to state otherwise is to acknowledge that there is something, namely God, which influences the universe from without.

tagnostic
December 10th, 2008, 03:54 PM
if it is a closed system
and there is a controlling
influence without, isn't
that then also part of the
universe?

Fallen Hero
December 10th, 2008, 04:41 PM
That returns back to the dualism v. monism debate. How do minds affect space-time when they are themselves outside of space-time?

sudikics
December 10th, 2008, 05:20 PM
I woudl like to bring to the table the idea of Blotzmann brains.

In the infinity of time, quantum fluctuations dictate that everything that isn't strictly forbidden will happen. Eventually, a three-mile high statue of Loki's dog will spontaneously appear and explode into raining chocolate. It's gonna happen eventually.

Anyway, this means that disembodied neural systems will appear and disappear at points in time. Some of these disembodied neural systems may be self-aware, and conscious, and able to observe the universe around them.

Thoughts? (Sorry, I had a point to make, but I lost it. Give me a little time, it'll come back.)

a1cook
December 10th, 2008, 11:56 PM
There was a time when only birds flew, now man flies faster than birds; as man learns, so does God.

Al Farabi
December 11th, 2008, 12:07 AM
There was a time when only birds flew, now man flies faster than birds; as man learns, so does God.

Elaborate? Several meanings could be taken from this.

Dr Goofy Mofo
December 11th, 2008, 12:11 AM
There was a time when only birds flew, now man flies faster than birds; as man learns, so does God.

God was all knowing, so he can not learn anything new.

rmw
December 11th, 2008, 01:24 AM
(Sorry, I had a point to make, but I lost it. Give me a little time, it'll come back.)


Good, because you lost me at a "three mile statue of Loki's dog." :D

narasha
December 11th, 2008, 05:47 AM
Try and study this question a little more, ive been thinking about it. and the simple answer is god created god which created god etc... it could go on forever!

To put it in Simple ways..... One Cannot determine the vast amount of knownledge it would take to know who created god.

If you want to know follow Google and search for it :)

bouchie
December 11th, 2008, 03:05 PM
Anyway, this means that disembodied neural systems will appear and disappear at points in time. Some of these disembodied neural systems may be self-aware, and conscious, and able to observe the universe around them.

Thoughts? (Sorry, I had a point to make, but I lost it. Give me a little time, it'll come back.) Could it be that you were thinking that we, humans, would eventually evolve into God? That God is possibly, based on this rather interesting theory, is naturally evolved being bound by ever-increasingly weird laws of physics.

Gene Roddenberry would have loved this.

Sister Faith
December 14th, 2008, 11:31 PM
Try and study this question a little more, ive been thinking about it. and the simple answer is god created god which created god etc... it could go on forever!

It does go on forever. Once the question of whether God created the universe is answered, then the next question would logically be who/what created god, and so forth, ad infinitum.

I see it as rather like a dog chasing it's tail. A useless endeavor and a goal that will never be reached in my lifetime, so why get arsed about it? :\

Al Farabi
December 15th, 2008, 02:33 AM
It does go on forever. Once the question of whether God created the universe is answered, then the next question would logically be who/what created god, and so forth, ad infinitum.

I see it as rather like a dog chasing it's tail. A useless endeavor and a goal that will never be reached in my lifetime, so why get arsed about it? :\

Because it's good to try to understand the universe? In your lifetime we will probably never cure cancer either. Should we give up on that?

Fallen Hero
December 15th, 2008, 05:44 PM
No, it is execise for your brain, and an exercise in philosophical thinking. Not useless.

sudikics
December 15th, 2008, 07:20 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14168-cancer-patient-cured-with-his-own-immune-system.html

tagnostic
December 15th, 2008, 08:43 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14168-cancer-patient-cured-with-his-own-immune-system.html

now if they could just
put the cure in tobacco.

Al Farabi
December 15th, 2008, 09:02 PM
interesting, but also not really my point

sudikics
December 15th, 2008, 10:23 PM
interesting, but also not really my point
Exactly. I'm simply finding interesting tidbits. I already responded to this thread anyway.

bouchie
December 16th, 2008, 07:13 PM
Let's go back to the original question:


It is evident through observation that all events need causes. Aristotle thought that it was something called the First Cause (in latin, Primum Movens): "something which moves itself, but is not itself moved." I agree. I think the First Cause was God.

What do you think?

I think there is a logical inconsistency here. First of all, you think God is the First Cause. But the logical argument presented does not entail that the First Cause be an omnipotent being. That is something you impose after the fact.

Also, you say that all events need causes. Now, I have this assumption that every event is a cause. All events are part of a causal chain. If that is true, then an event must be the cause of another event. But if that assumption is true, how can a cause not be an event? Does this not lead to an inconsistency in the original argument?

sam the moderately wize
December 17th, 2008, 11:53 AM
My position:

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclintro/

Because of the nature of this theory, the entire sequence of universes can go in a circle of infinite length, removing the need for a first cause entirely.