If there's no God, how did the Universe form?

[catholic1seeks]

What do atheists usually say?

Something else to address:
Is it even possible for the Universe to have always existed?

 

[Jocko_VT]

What do atheists usually say?

Something else to address:
Is it even possible for the Universe to have always existed?

There are several answers to the first question. The best one, in my opinion, is “I don’t know.”

Something Stephen Hawking said recently:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,”

 

[Saintlucy]

But who put the law of gravity there in the first place?

 

[tugbaby]

the easiest way to challenge the certainty is the question of a small child, “why?”

 

[Anthony_V]

The biggest pointer towards God (for me) is the fact that laws have limitation and boundary. The laws themselves are governed, as it seems. The speed of light is not infinite, but rather definite:

299,792,458 meter/sec

And somehow, all the laws of physics just magically work together by chance. Because they’re magical. It’s not a matter of GODDIDIT (gesundheit), but a presentation of the rationality the universe follows. The universe is in fact rational. The greater question is “why?”
Many people are looking for irrational and inexplicable circumstances to prove God. I don’t find those instances to be particularly neurologically stimulating. The fact that rationality exists is mind boggling, but that’s just me.

 

[starsmurf]

As an astrophysicist, I can say that the universe has not existed forever. Atheists generally support the conclusions of science, that the universe formed about 13.7 billion years ago in an event called the Big Bang.

It is possible for the universe to have formed without the need for a God. The Big Bang theory adequately explains where gravity, the other three forces and all the matter within the universe came from.

As a Catholic. I believe that there is a God and that He was the cause of the Big Bang, which does not mean that science will never find a reason for the Big Bang. I find the ideas of supporters of religious pseudosciences like intelligent design, to be really dangerous. If you say something like “this can’t be explained, therefore it is proof of the existance of God!”, what happens when scientists turn round and say, “actually we can explain this.” Does God disappear? If you accept the scientific theories (a theory in science does not mean “just an idea” it means something that has been tested and passed), along with God, then whatever the discoveries of science your faith will be fine. If you read Genesis carefully and treat it as a spiritual guide, not a science textbook, then the current scientific theories and the creation as in Genesis actually agree.

If you have any questions on the Big Bang, feel free to ask.

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, I think that the most intelligent atheists think about the universe the same way some theists think of God - in the sense of it being a self-existent entity. But not an intelligent spirit who wills creation, like we think, but as a physical or physical/spiritual thing which simply exists according to its own nature. This is similar to what some ancient philosophers thought, or someone like Spinoza.

As for why such a self-existent entity would exist or where it would come from, the answer would be the same as why does God exist or where does he come from.

 

[TimothyH]

But who put the law of gravity there in the first place?

It was an accident. Someone was trying to make mashed potatoes and added too much butter. Gravity came out instead.

Handel’s Messiah too. A complete accident.

And the atheists girlfriend was an accident.

-Tim-

 

[BGR_15]

I’m a science freak and love it to death. I believe the Big Bang did happen. But my biggest question is where did the matter come from in the first place to create the Big Bang?

 

[Bluegoat]

As an astrophysicist, I can say that the universe has not existed forever. Atheists generally support the conclusions of science, that the universe formed about 13.7 billion years ago in an event called the Big Bang.

It is possible for the universe to have formed without the need for a God. The Big Bang theory adequately explains where gravity, the other three forces and all the matter within the universe came from.

If you have any questions on the Big Bang, feel free to ask.

I’m going to take you at your word here and ask a question, though I am afraid it may be outside of physics. But I’d be really interested in your response.

When I have heard people say that the Big Bang explains where things come from, or that gravity could cause the universe to come into being, it seems to me they are saying that there are underlying principles at work that explain what we see. But I don’t see how they think that resolves the metaphysical questions the existence of such things raises. It always seems to me they are assuming that theology or metaphysics is saying that there must be a God like the Christian God who is a big guy in the sky who makes decisions and such, and they think that physics can show that is not required, and therefor theology is no longer required. Whereas really theology and metaphysics begins as soon as we start to inquire about the nature of underlies any kind of logos that moves things and how we can discern that logos, even if it is perfectly united to the physical.

It always seems to me like they have not read enough Plato or Aristotle.

 

[Luke_K]

Atheists usually say that they don’t know how the universe came to be, and that not knowing for the moment is acceptable. Basically they’re holding out for a scientific explanation in the future because God is not a satisfactory explanation for them.

But who put the law of gravity there in the first place?

Why do you use the words “who put” in your question?

 

[Art321]

Atheists usually say that they don’t know how the universe came to be, and that not knowing for the moment is acceptable. Basically they’re holding out for a scientific explanation in the future because God is not a satisfactory explanation for them.

Why do you use the words “who put” in your question?

Although I’m not the one to who you were replying, I would say that it is better to say who rather than what. Simply because if we ask the question “what caused gravity?” then it is safe to ask what put the force that came to bring gravity into existence.

Something or someone had to have caused everything because at some point there had to have been a first cause. Hopfully I made some sense. Hope this helps.

 

[Bluegoat]

Although I’m not the one to who you were replying, I would say that it is better to say who rather than what. Simply because if we ask the question “what caused gravity?” then it is safe to ask what put the force that came to bring gravity into existence.

Something or someone had to have caused everything because at some point there had to have been a first cause. Hopfully I made some sense. Hope this helps.

But saying that cause has to be a who rather than a what is a big assumption. The idea of God being a who is not all that common really. In history, a lot of thinkers have seen God as more a kind of force, or almost like an equation even.

 

[starsmurf]

I’m going to take you at your word here and ask a question, though I am afraid it may be outside of physics. But I’d be really interested in your response.

When I have heard people say that the Big Bang explains where things come from, or that gravity could cause the universe to come into being, it seems to me they are saying that there are underlying principles at work that explain what we see. But I don’t see how they think that resolves the metaphysical questions the existence of such things raises. It always seems to me they are assuming that theology or metaphysics is saying that there must be a God like the Christian God who is a big guy in the sky who makes decisions and such, and they think that physics can show that is not required, and therefor theology is no longer required. Whereas really theology and metaphysics begins as soon as we start to inquire about the nature of underlies any kind of logos that moves things and how we can discern that logos, even if it is perfectly united to the physical.

It always seems to me like they have not read enough Plato or Aristotle.

You seem to be asking a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one.

In science, we don’t sit around asking why, that is not our job. We can come up with a theory that explains how the universe came into being and the process that resulted in the universe we see today. Science asks “what, how, where, when?” Religion/philosophy/metaphysics asks “who, why?”

the Big Bang does not require a Big Person to start it, it does not require God but it doesn’t rule God out either.

 

[Art321]

But saying that cause has to be a who rather than a what is a big assumption. The idea of God being a who is not all that common really. In history, a lot of thinkers have seen God as more a kind of force, or almost like an equation even.

True, it is a big assumption but so is saying that cause is a what. By saying that the cause was a what, then what caused that what to come into existance?

On a side note, am I making any sense?

 

[starsmurf]

I’m a science freak and love it to death. I believe the Big Bang did happen. But my biggest question is where did the matter come from in the first place to create the Big Bang?

The matter in the Big Bang was produced by the processes involved. It wasn’t sitting there all packed together and then exploding apart. Due to the very high energy of the Big Bang and the high temperature and density, particles and antiparticles were being formed and annilated. A process called baryogenisis meant that there was a slight excess of matter over antimatter. That is the origin of the matter that makes up the universe we see today.

 

[Spock]

Well, I think that the most intelligent atheists think about the universe the same way some theists think of God - in the sense of it being a self-existent entity. But not an intelligent spirit who wills creation, like we think, but as a physical or physical/spiritual thing which simply exists according to its own nature. This is similar to what some ancient philosophers thought, or someone like Spinoza.

As for why such a self-existent entity would exist or where it would come from, the answer would be the same as why does God exist or where does he come from.

A bunch of excellent remarks from different posters, and this one is especially good. It points to the parallel between the theistic and atheistic beliefs. They both are founded on a basic principle: “there is some unexplained and unexplainable foundation for all existence”. The word “explanation” means to reduce someting to a “more” basic entity, and the ultimate foundation (obviously) cannot be reduced any further.

For the theists this basic explanation is “god” (not necessarily the Christian God), but some entity, which “transcends” or surpasses the “natural, observable world” - the usual word is “supernatural”, (though it could and should be called “unnatural”, after all there is no “sub-natural”, is there? ).

For the atheists it is the universe. The word “universe” is STEM - space, time, energy, matter (energy and matter are actually the same). For the atheists the questions: “where did the universe come from?”, or “what existed before the universe?”, or what exists outside the universe?" are nonsensical questions, just like the question: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?” would be a syntactically valid, but semantically meaningless utterance.

When comparing the theistic and atheistic “basic” stance, it is obvious that the atheistic one is more “parsimonous”. It looks at the “stuff” we all experience, and is content with it. Of course a parsimonous answer is not necessarily a valid answer. It may well be that the atheistic view is incorrect. However, there is nothing that would necessitate the assumption of a “transcendant” or “supernatural” explanation. Theists don’t like this. They insist on some “mystical” approach. For them the idea that “this is all there is” is “dirty materialism”.

But hard as they try, they cannot come up with anything that does not have a “natural” explanation. They try questions: “without God where does love (or justice, or morality, or whatever) come from?”. When there was no real science, everything was attributed to some “god”. The lightning was imagined as God’s flaming sword. Illnesses were imagined as something caused by “demons”. Etc… As science evolves, the so called “supernatural” explanations become unnecessary and superfluous. And observe, that the so-called supernatural “explanations” were anything but explanations: they all say: “an unknown being, using unimaginable means made it somehow happen” - which is the antithesis of an explanation.

When it comes to the Big Bang, and the so-called “beginning” of the universe, there is a false assumption, saying that the universe “started” with the Big Bang. That is yet another incorrect assumption. Rather, the current form of the universe started at that point. What was the nature of the singularity is unknown.

 

[sharptiger999]

A bunch of excellent remarks from different posters, and this one is especially good. It points to the parallel between the theistic and atheistic beliefs. They both are founded on a basic principle: “there is some unexplained and unexplainable foundation for all existence”. The word “explanation” means to reduce someting to a “more” basic entity, and the ultimate foundation (obviously) cannot be reduced any further.

For the theists this basic explanation is “god” (not necessarily the Christian God), but some entity, which “transcends” or surpasses the “natural, observable world” - the usual word is “supernatural”, (though it could and should be called “unnatural”, after all there is no “sub-natural”, is there? ).

For the atheists it is the universe. The word “universe” is STEM - space, time, energy, matter (energy and matter are actually the same). For the atheists the questions: “where did the universe come from?”, or “what existed before the universe?”, or what exists outside the universe?" are nonsensical questions, just like the question: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?” would be a syntactically valid, but semantically meaningless utterance.

When comparing the theistic and atheistic “basic” stance, it is obvious that the atheistic one is more “parsimonous”. It looks at the “stuff” we all experience, and is content with it. Of course a parsimonous answer is not necessarily a valid answer. It may well be that the atheistic view is incorrect. However, there is nothing that would necessitate the assumption of a “transcendant” or “supernatural” explanation. Theists don’t like this. They insist on some “mystical” approach. For them the idea that “this is all there is” is “dirty materialism”.

But hard as they try, they cannot come up with anything that does not have a “natural” explanation. They try questions: “without God where does love (or justice, or morality, or whatever) come from?”. When there was no real science, everything was attributed to some “god”. The lightning was imagined as God’s flaming sword. Illnesses were imagined as something caused by “demons”. Etc… As science evolves, the so called “supernatural” explanations become unnecessary and superfluous. And observe, that the so-called supernatural “explanations” were anything but explanations: they all say: “an unknown being, using unimaginable means made it somehow happen” - which is the antithesis of an explanation.

When it comes to the Big Bang, and the so-called “beginning” of the universe, there is a false assumption, saying that the universe “started” with the Big Bang. That is yet another incorrect assumption. Rather, the current form of the universe started at that point. What was the nature of the singularity is unknown.

Brilliant.

 

[Luke_K]

GoodGuyGreg wrote a summary of Hawking’s argument of how the universe formed in another thread. Hopefully he doesn’t mind me copying it here.

GoodGuyGreg:

Hawking’s Argument for the Spontaneous Universe (Three Parts)

Part 1

1. The universe is made up of positive energy (electromagnetism, mass, nuclear forces, etc) and negative energy (quantum potential energy of a vacuum).
2. Both the positive and negative energies of the universe, if added, are equal to zero. This is not to hard to believe if we recognize that an atom is mostly empty space, a solar system is mostly empty space, and the universe is overwhelmingly empty space.
3. Therefore, there is no need for any energy to be added or subtracted to create the universe since the total is equal to zero.

Part 2

1. According to Big Bang Theory, the universe began from an infinitely dense and infinitely small state, referred to as a “singularity”.
2. This singularity is similar to black holes since both share the characteristics of being infinitely dense.
3. In a black hole, the closer you get to the event horizon, the more time slows because of relativity. At the center of a black hole time stands still because the gravity well created in the time-space continuum is infinitely deep.
4. In a singularity, the entire time-space continuum is contained within the singularity so time does not exist before the Big Bang.

Part 3

1. At the quantum level, subatomic particles like bosons and mesons may spontaneously come in and out of existence.
2. The singularity of the Big Bang is very similar to these elementary particles.
3. Therefore, the singularity could have come into existence without cause.

With this, Hawking’s makes his case for a universe that does not necessitate the creation nor the causation of a god. However, this says nothing about the existence of a god, which may exist if your definition of it does not depend upon it creating the universe.

 

[Joan1969]

You seem to be asking a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one.

In science, we don’t sit around asking why, that is not our job. We can come up with a theory that explains how the universe came into being and the process that resulted in the universe we see today. Science asks “what, how, where, when?” Religion/philosophy/metaphysics asks “who, why?”

the Big Bang does not require a Big Person to start it, it does not require God but it doesn’t rule God out either.

Hi Star,

On one level, we can certainly respect these self-imposed limitations of science, though scientists like Hawking and Carl Sagan have certainly taken some pretty major and public dips into philosophical and religious questions.

Still, the questions about who and why are as compelling as any other, and they demand intelligent, fact-based answers as do scientific ones. Religious or so-called “metaphysical” thought often consists of wild speculations or mere assertions, and I personally just don’t see how people can be satisfied with that, as if there really were no consequences to our spiritual thinking.

Another question if whether the claim here is that there is no contingency in the universe. Does it have to exist the way it does? Supposing the history of the Big Bang does explain (for instance) gravity, electromagnetism etc., doesn’t that just push the question back a bit? It doesn’t do anything to reduce the contingency. A chaotic universe with laws that are hostile to life is as logical as ours.

God Bless,
Joan