Ever wondered about the origins of the universe?

I saw an episode this week of a series called Ancient Aliens on History Channel and it got me thinking on something that I always used to think about until I just gave up. Okay, so whether you are religious, scientific or otherwise we have atleast once in our lives wondered about the origins of the universe. Religion gives us one possible answer, science gives us its answers and so on.

I was thinking in terms of religion that if God was the beginning then who created God? Scientists would rather look more on the Big ■■■■ theory in which there was this giant piece of matter hovering around in space and then it exploded triggering the beginning of the universe as we know it. I can’t exactly recall but the Ancient Alien series said that there was another theory that there was some sort of planet that had life on it and from there it spread through the universe. Again if that was so then who or what created that planet?

I guess the big question for me is how can something come from nothing? For if we say God was the beginning then who created God? Then who created the being that created God and so on. If it was the Big ■■■■ then who or what caused the explosion? I hate to think that the matter is just there and then suddenly it started to heat up and then exploded. But even so who created the matter? Basically for just about any explanation I have heard of the question I then ask is who or what created that which you believe was the beginning?

Someone once told me that perhaps the universe simply created itself and if you believe in God then God created Himself. So far this seems to be one of the best answers I have come across yet I still cannot conceive of how something that simply create itself from nothing.

I’ve not seen a thread like this on the forum and was thinking that perhaps this could spark a nice little discussion.

That’s the difference between faith and knowledge - a difference best explained by those further up the food chain than me.

How far down the food chain are you ;D

I guess, putting it simply, faith to the individual is the absolute truth while knowledge to the individual is a partial truth.

But in regard to your reply I am not looking at the dilemma from a faith’s perspective because if that were the reason then I wouldn’t question it. For me I would actually like to see a scientific explanation if there can be one. This explanation does not have to be the absolute truth but rather more an idea on the process of having something come into existence from an absolute non-existence.

There isn’t any more, excepting anti-Darwinist leagues maybe still living in some parts of the world, a “black and white” opposition between faith and science, and non-integrist religions now admit biologic and astronomic theories of evolution, while some very famous scientists are also very faithful people.

But even admitting the big ■■■■ and black hole theory doesn’t fully account for, if not its evolution, at least the creation of the Universe.

I am afraid that this question, said to be the one of “the hen and the egg” (which one came first?) shall never be resolved either from a religious or scientific point of view.

You may definitely be right on that one but I would still like to see different views or possible answers as to why. I guess we may never really know until we build a time machine and travel back to the day existence began.

As far as my wife tells me I am. :smiley:

I guess, putting it simply, faith to the individual is the absolute truth while knowledge to the individual is a partial truth.
May be better worded as "Faith to the individual is absolute belief while knowledge to the individual is absolute truth".

you called? ;D
bow before me my son (:HUG)

i think there’s a quote from a movie which i forgot the title, it says something like:
“it’s not god who created human, it is human who created god”

human for their lack of understanding about how the nature works created this image about a bigger/mighty power to explain how things happen.

mongolians worship tengri, the god of the sky
ancient greek believes in Gods of olympus
the name Allah came from old middle east moon god
the chinese got shang ti , the supreme god
i think some japanese still have this Amaterasu-goddess of sun
and there’s me, i pray to myself everyday for i am THE ganda almighty O0

i read this somewhere:
“it doesn’t matter if you worship a phallus as long as you don’t shove it in me” (oops, sorry Jeremy (:TNG))

We’re sooooooo not worthy Ganda!

[attachment deleted by admin]

the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything might be 42…

or so it was told.
Some scientists described a technique that put the answer at 65.

The problem with trying to figure out where the universe ultimately came from is that Physics can only apply to events after the Big ■■■■. As far as we can tell time didn’t exist before then and therefore all Physics falls apart.

So as to figuring this out in the thread… good luck. ;D Personally, I think we’re all in the Matrix. Follow the white rabbit. 88)

So true bro, as physics and logic go hand-in-hand in that the laws of physics are universal just as pure logic. Hmmm, I guess this is why physicians and mathematicians are so alike in their approach to things.

When you think of it you can always picture some kind of future and a possibilities of never ending futures but not so in reverse. In reverse there will be an ultimate stop and then nothing beyond that.

Oh brother this just inspired me to start another topic.

I’ll give it a shot, again.

I suppose if we define being influenced by time as a necessary component of existing that this leads to the supposition that if time was created with the Big ■■■■ then the universe only came into existence at that time. I suppose it depends on what you define as existence, but I cannot imagine a universe, or anything, without time.

If you want a better scientific explanation then read this:
It’s a good read and, at least in my opinion, not too difficult to understand. Just remember one thing. On the quantum level everything is strange and common sense nearly always breaks down.

Yeah I get what you are trying to say and so far I agree with you. I’ll definitely read that article.

check these out

Oh dear. Time for all types of strange theories concocted by wacky people who can only get hired by universities. 88)

Hohoho. Why would a God would need to be created? Sure, if he is in time. But what if outside of time…no creating is necessary. :slight_smile:

For time is a series of events made up of the past. In order to have time, things have to change (moving included). Things obviously change in our world: A baby becomes Bill Gates, a garbage dump becomes a ganda, etc.

I certainly think it possible there may be an unchanging God.

That seems much more probable than having “stuff” create itself. Where did the “stuff” for the “Big ■■■■” come from? If something created the “stuff” for the “Big ■■■■”, who created the “something”? And on and on.

I’m afraid we can’t discuss this type of “science” without bringing in “religion.”

Oh, some are still pursuing truth that “Darwinism” can’t provide. >:-D

Well…I think it is solved within one “religion”. It is just all the others have their own. And only one can be true. :slight_smile:

The scientific explanation is just as fantastic and mind-blowing as the religious one so you can’t say that the faith explanation is stupid. The point is we’re never going to know. There are some things that we can never figure out and frankly, we’re a bit vain to think that we can. In the end, God is just as believable as Darwin.

God is just as believable as Darwin.


There’s some evidence, but as previously said limited in time altough less and less of Darwin theories and of every theory following not only in biology, but also in various human sciences (paleontology…) as well that in astronomy and quantum physics.

There’s, at the day speaking, no evidence whatsoever of Jehovah, Allah or Vishnu, call Him the way you like.

Pascal (Blaise), said to have imagined the first “computer”, wrote: “bend on your knees, and you shall believe”:
Faith is a matter of self-accepted but blind belief, “Darwinism” (as to globally describe whatever biological and physical evolution theory) is not, altough as i allready stated they do not always exclude Faith.

Sounds a bit like Kierkegaard (in that faith is blind).

First, there is plenty of historical evidence for the Bible. Other historians around that time indirectly verify events.

And the very style of the Bible testifies for it: It isn’t a book of just strange mystical claims. Instead, much of the Bible, especially the NT, is written in a humble, down-to-earth way. The varies authors reference other well-known historical events.

In addition, the disciples began spreading their news and claims right where the event happened, and where there were eye-witnesses. If anyone was going to make up that something major and public happened recently, he wouldn’t do it right where others could debunk his claims.

Jesus claimed he was God. Then, he must have been either:

  1. A crazy man.
  2. An evil lier.
  3. God.

Jesus certainly answered others with intelligence, and didn’t act like a crazy man.
He was kind to the poor (the rich didn’t need kindness much as much as correction), and helped them.
That leaves one option…

And then I could go on about the design of this universe. It seems impossible for it to have come about by chance. I live in a natural area, where I can go out and spend time looking at nature. It is much more intricate than any computer or program…and those are made by designers, not chance.

And the human mind too.

I would say there is certainly much evidence for a Divine Being. It is just people don’t want to believe.

Nicely put Laser. :-TU

Darwin is “right” because we’re told he is, that’s it. I believe in adaptation, not necessarily evolution. These are 2 different things but we’re being taught both in the context of the same theory. In doing so we hesitate to separate the 2 and in turn convince ourselves that one can’t be possible without the other. Not so.

brucine…Give me one example of how the big ■■■■ theory is any more believable than the theoligical idea. Could the 2 different theories be the same? Neither you or I or anyone else is smart enough to really figure this out. Scientists can’t even cure ancient known diseases for which there are cures on this very planet! The Bible may not be infallible but I sure as hell know man isn’t. :wink: