What is the cause or creator of the universe?

[Elsaka]

what is it ? is it a supernatural genuis that many call "God" or nothing created it or did cause it self. I want to have a rational and logical discussion to reach a meanigful conclusion.

 

[Cognisant]

Why is this in the Archive?

And regarding the OP nobody knows, of course we could say god did it but then where did god come from?

Maybe this isn't even reality we could just be a computer simulation in the real universe, indeed if there is only one real universe and a less than infinite number of simulated universes in that universe then it seems highly likely that this is a simulation.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

There needn't be a cause.

 

[Architect]

From a science perspective we actually don't really know. You hear a lot thrown around about alternate universes, what happened before the BB and other Cosmology ideas, but it's mostly speculation. Not until we get more evidence about the universe will we be able to develop firmer theories of what happened before time zero.

 

[Teax]

I'm not convinced that reason even is applicable outside on our universe

 

[Jennywocky]

I agree, we can't see what happened outside the boundaries of this universe; there have been speculations, but what is there to truly go on?

We might as well be in flatworld without any evidence to 3D reality or higher.

 

[Brontosaurie]

some other kind of verse like omniverse or ectoverse, i should think

 

[Cherry Cola]

Now matter how you look at it it comes down to incest in the end

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

Now matter how you look at it it comes down to incest in the end

what doesn't?

 

[gilliatt]

What is, is uncreated. There had to have been something or nothing. Universe created out of something, that makes no sense. Out of nothing, for there is no nothing. Both are wrong, it is uncreated is only logical answer.
An atom, what is, is indestructible. No one can make one nor destroy one!!
There was not, one day an atom arises on March 3, 1734. That is pure nonsense.
So, a thing is transformed but never disappears.
Think of it, universe, it is altogether, been that way forever and forever. Existence exists. "What is, is."
"What is not, is not." They are tautologies like A is A. Self evidently true.
A creator? More nonsense!
A cause? Why gravity? Why matter? What in the world!!!

 

[Grayman]

String theory is fun

 

[SpaceYeti]

Frankly, my best answer is; I don't know, and I'm not even sure the question makes sense in the first place. When the universe started existing was the same moment time started existing. There's no such thing as "before" that such that a cause for it could exist.

 

[QuickTwist]

Frankly, my best answer is; I don't know, and I'm not even sure the question makes sense in the first place. When the universe started existing was the same moment time started existing. There's no such thing as "before" that such that a cause for it could exist.

That is not necessarily true. What if the big bang was just a bunch of unidentified matter that sat in a dormant state for who the hell knows how long before it exploded and set off the chain reaction to what we have in today's universe? Think of how a star explodes when it has burnt all the energy... I'm saying the universe could very well have started similar to that.

BTW watching documentary of a very simplified version of what Steven Hawking thinks about how the origin of the universe began is not even close to enough info to get even a basic understanding of how the universe was created.

 

[computerhxr]

Someone divided by 0 in the future and it created the past. Everything exists because of an error.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Will just leave this here: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html


But in a way, it depends. Subscribing to BBT, in a simplistic and mechanical manner, reversing this expansion of space, the only thing that was was a point, which evidently expanded, and due to laws of physics everything that there is now came of it, through gravity and fusion, and friction. There's an existential beauty to this notion. As far as "what 'existed' outside this point or before it; etc", that would depend. There's like five or six remote options, we can discuss them and you can choose your favorite one for the time being. Most of them suggest and involve discrete amounts of space with the possibility of other spaces holding somewhere near at hand, and negative pressures or forces too.

For the sake of curiosity, I think extra dimensions are worthy of acknowledgement or at least consideration but I sort of understand the position those ideas are in at the moment.

If you think about it, it is kind of weird that we're just here in space. What is this? We need more research?

 

[Sockrates]

Logic and reason can be applied to this subject, just not by myself. I don't know enough and likely never will. A goal of mine is to find out though. I'll let you know one day, just not right now.

 

[8151147]

"god"

But not god concept of religion or something like that. "It" is not human of course, and likely to be non-object and non-properties thing.

 

[SpaceYeti]

That is not necessarily true. What if the big bang was just a bunch of unidentified matter that sat in a dormant state for who the hell knows how long before it exploded and set off the chain reaction to what we have in today's universe? Think of how a star explodes when it has burnt all the energy... I'm saying the universe could very well have started similar to that.

BTW watching documentary of a very simplified version of what Steven Hawking thinks about how the origin of the universe began is not even close to enough info to get even a basic understanding of how the universe was created.

We can what-if all day. What seems to be the case, though?

 

[QuickTwist]

Ignoring a plausible possibility and then making a judgment without this considered is ignorance. That seems to be the case.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I had considered it, though. It seems less likely to be the case. I never said it's not, only that it's less likely. The reason is because mass/energy simply would not just hang out in the form of a hyper-compressed space all on it's own. It would instantly begin expanding from internal pressure alone. Granting, the BBT involveds a small area which composes all of the area of the universe. Either that small space was being forced to remain a small space and then the thing holding it together stopped working, or something changed which then caused spacial expansion. There's nothing to suggest that the laws of physics suddenly changed. Also, granted, the BBT explains only from the moment of expansion on, but if we were to suggest that time was functioning/was an extisting thing prior to this expansion, we would then have to figure out why things suddenly changed, and then we would simply be left pushing the first moment of time backwards. No matter what, there was a first moment of time. If we place that first moment at expansion, we just explained expansion. pushing time backwards has no explanatory power, and in fact creates problems.

Again, it could be the case, but it doesn't seem to be, especially considering the fact that considering space and time an interlocking mechanic has solved many problems with physics, both quantum and large-scale. If time and space are inter-related, as it seems to be, then there would be no time without space, and there would be no time in the theoretical singularity of the universe prior to the BB, thus making "prior to the universe" a potentially (not necessarily) oxymoronic concept.

 

[QuickTwist]

I had considered it, though. It seems less likely to be the case. I never said it's not, only that it's less likely. The reason is because mass/energy simply would not just hang out in the form of a hyper-compressed space all on it's own. It would instantly begin expanding from internal pressure alone. Granting, the BBT involveds a small area which composes all of the area of the universe. Either that small space was being forced to remain a small space and then the thing holding it together stopped working, or something changed which then caused spacial expansion. There's nothing to suggest that the laws of physics suddenly changed. Also, granted, the BBT explains only from the moment of expansion on, but if we were to suggest that time was functioning/was an extisting thing prior to this expansion, we would then have to figure out why things suddenly changed, and then we would simply be left pushing the first moment of time backwards. No matter what, there was a first moment of time. If we place that first moment at expansion, we just explained expansion. pushing time backwards has no explanatory power, and in fact creates problems.

Again, it could be the case, but it doesn't seem to be, especially considering the fact that considering space and time an interlocking mechanic has solved many problems with physics, both quantum and large-scale. If time and space are inter-related, as it seems to be, then there would be no time without space, and there would be no time in the theoretical singularity of the universe prior to the BB, thus making "prior to the universe" a potentially (not necessarily) oxymoronic concept.

There's no evidence either way, so why draw a conclusion at all? We basically know next to nothing of how the universe began or even if it did. That is my point. To try and come up with a hypothesis that we cannot test is utterly pointless. Likely, less likely has nothing to do with it. Just as it is less likely that someone has a computer that is worth more than their car doesn't mean it is anything to actually go on and make a judgement about. This is why not drawing a conclusion is best and what INTP's are supposed to be the best at.

Anyways, I digress. I don't honestly care enough about the issue, problem, conundrum to continue with a fruitless debate that will never be proved one way or another within our lifetime.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

I recommend the Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument, and most importantly the Teleological Argument. Hume is the best guide, though not as easy to digest as has been thought.

 

[Reluctantly]

A giant cosmic explosion occurred, whereby the phallus of the universe entered the great taco of dark space and BAMM, each one explodes in unison and birthed the planets of the mighty universe. WE ARE CHILDREN OF COSMIC ECSTASY.

 

[StevenM]

My beliefs don't remain too consistent, but here's an idea on the fly, though it's slightly solipsistic:

You created the universe.

If you weren't conscious, and also unable to perceive anything, it really wouldn't matter. There would be absolutely no thought of any of it, and even more peculiar, you wouldn't perceive time. Without being conscious, who knows what random crap there actually was or wasn't, or perhaps all variations super-imposed in a Schrödinger dillemma.

You could have been in that state for zillions of time-units relative to whatever you want, but it would only seem as a spontaneous instant until by pure chance and odds, you became conscious into a biological machine that organizes and illusively focuses reality and time into what you experience.

To sum it all up, if everything, the Universe, and all multiverses as a whole even had a minute fraction of a chance for your consciousness, you'd be taken there in a seemingly split second.

And here you are today.

 

[Aerl]

Hello everybody

My point of belief leaves only a few options of explenation to the very
beginning of our physical reality. Eather we're here by only some accident,
or some sentien being from higher dimention started everything we have
knowledge of.

First option is somewhat egsistencial, we decide our own future and
meaning to life. My view could be summed up by "TMills27" post. World as
we know may not even be what we think it is, maybe "blue color" isint
even like "blue" as we know it and yet, we live on in ignorance the rest of
our life without knowing some universal truth.

Another view is: we're like atoms always in chaotic movement, a computer
simulation, but to put simply... we're here with purpose to unravel some
mystery, something that resides behind this domain of ours. Something
that is reachable even by people with disfuncion, even animals. Thus, our
purpose is to observe, and through observation understand that what
we're here for is something simple. but evasive.
(Something we don't fully understand).