The Universe: Accidental or Deliberate?

[Marius Fett]

Where do you think the Uninverse came from?

 

Was its creation an accident? Or is it part of some grand plan?

 

Why is there life? What is the meaning of it?

 

In other words, why does the Universe exist?

 

It doesn't matter if your opinion is Religious or Scientifically based, post it here.

 

[mur'phon]

Where do you think the Uninverse came from?

 

I don't know where it came from, and neither does anyone else. Of course, there are theories/hypothesises, but I don't know which one(es) to believe in, or care that much what is corect as it dosen't seem to affect me much.

 

Was its creation an accident?

 

An accident seems to asume that someone (a creator) made a mistake, I don't believe in a creator, and therefore don't think it was an accident.

 

Why is there life?

 

Because conditions on earth made it possible.

 

What is the meaning of it?

 

Like with every other creature, I guess you could say the maning is to spread our genes far an wide, though if you don't feel like doing that you could of course find a meaning yourself. For instance the meaning of life for me is to cause more good than harm to the rest of the world.

 

In other words, why does the Universe exist?

 

I don't know, pherhaps because conditions where such that it could happen?

[Samuel Dravis]

Where do you think the Universe came from?

Where could it come from?

 

Was its creation an accident?

Created as opposed to...? Created by what? An accident differentiated from...? What would a created universe look like? What would an accidental universe look like?

 

Or is it part of some grand plan?

What kind of plan involves the whole universe?

 

Why is there life?

What kind of answer are you looking for?

 

What is the meaning of it?

What kind of meaning could there be?

 

In other words, why does the Universe exist?

The universe doesn't exist, per se. It is the background by which other things exist and do not exist. You might think that you can imagine the universe not existing-- as a sort of empty space. But how is "empty space" defined? ---By reference to its opposite, solid objects. But if there were no objects than there would be no distinction possible. Our words only work, only have meaning in this context: that of our universe and everything in it (but don't take that to mean that there is or could be something actually outside of the universe; it's just a form of speech). Some combinations of words are therefore meaningless when taken out of context, like this one has been. Its grammatical form is that of a question, but the meaning - the use of the sentence - has more in common with an expression.

 

You're out in your backyard at night looking at the stars and you remark to a friend: "Isn't it amazing that the universe exists?"

 

It is indeed.

[Arcesious]

Deliberate as a logic-based answer, accidental by an 'infinium theory' based answer.

 

What I think happened, but I cannot be sure of, is this:

 

In the beginning, there was nothing. No laws of physics or anything to control whether or not something did or did not exist, or happened.

Due to this, everything possible that could happen happened. Infinite possibilities.

(Or it could just as easily be that the universe always existed, and that paradoxes of that are void, becuase it could 'just be like that no matter what, because it already is')

 

After this, the physics of the universe were formed, and became permanent standards. By this, everything infinitly possible to happen and exist would happen, all at the same time, and then continue to keep on happening infinitly, ever-expanding the universe. Ultimately, there would have to be an end point in which all things come to order, and in which the current second law of thermodynamics would stop happening (The tendancy for all things to come to disorder), because infinite things would eventually be unable to repeat themselves.

 

(However, I could be wrong- As I don't have a degree in physics- I'm only theorizing things by what I know right now.)

 

They would then come to order, which could be called a sort of 'New law of uniformity'. What I am saying is that infinity breeds infinite equations, and eventually, when every infinite equation (or factor of something that happened, was happening, or going to happen, or existing) possible was acheived, the universe would stop expanding, It would reach a paradoxial point in it's existence, in which infinity had finally stopped, and in which everything would all form together to form the ultimate equation.

 

After that, there woudl be no other nature to the universe, because all equatiosn had existed/happened, and it's only remaining purpose was to exist as a mass of all things, or, a kind of 'black hole'.

 

IMO, the mathematics behind a black hole seems to be something that the second law of thermodynamics cannto accoutn for, as, using that law, you are forgetting one of the most important laws in physics- the law of gravitation, and Newton's 3 laws. The tendency of all things to come together. However, Quantum physics presents an unsolved paradox in that area also...

 

However, the universe may also cease to exist after this, and alllaws of physics would cease to exist, and it would happen all over again. It is possible, that, a sperpowerful being not bound by the laws of physics could be formed by this infinite process, as the universe's way to preserve it's existence and end it's infinite expansion. However, going into that is a whole other logical paradox...

 

IE, I don't deny that 'God' could exist as a factor of the universe whose purpose would be to accertain all knowledge and power infinitly possible in order to preserve the universe and decide it's ultimate purpose.

 

However, again, this is also another possibility:

 

The universe doesn't exist, per se. It is the background by which other things exist and do not exist. You might think that you can imagine the universe not existing-- as a sort of empty space. But how is "empty space" defined? ---By reference to its opposite, solid objects. But if there were no objects than there would be no distinction possible. Our words only work, only have meaning in this context: that of our universe and everything in it (but don't take that to mean that there is or could be something actually outside of the universe; it's just a form of speech). Some combinations of words are therefore meaningless when taken out of context, like this one has been. Its grammatical form is that of a question, but the meaning - the use of the sentence - has more in common with an expression.

 

 

Life's purpose, to me, is to preserve it's own existence, and to advance to a higher level.

 

Ultimately, the purpose and existence of the universe, to me, seems to only be possible to be truly answered if all paradoxes of existence and logic/purpose are answered...

 

(Sorry if I have made some spelling mistakes. I have typed this up rather quickly. )

[Achilles]

Where do you think the Uninverse came from?

The Ekpyrotic Universe hypothesis is kinda fun. I particularly enjoy the zero-energy universe hypothesis.

 

Was its creation an accident? Or is it part of some grand plan?

I prefer to think of it "the result of naturally occuring events". "Accident" implies that intent is somehow inherent.

 

Do trees fall down "on accident"?

 

Why is there life?

Because conditions that allow life to exist are present.

 

What is the meaning of it?

Whatever you decide it is

 

In other words, why does the Universe exist?

Because it does. Seems pretty simple, eh?

[Ravnas]

1. Mostly reiterating what Sammy said, where could it come from, a God? Is there a swirling vortex that randomly creates a universe? Who knows.

 

2. Neither, they both imply that something is still at work at this universe, and I being a half agnostic, half deist would disagree with that.

 

3.The question isn't worded correctly, the question should be what do you think is the meaning of life. I'm not a fan of subjectivist beliefs and I desire to be as individualist as possible, which I suppose is my meaning of life. Which is just live this life.

 

4.We are not an all-knowing species, so I refuse to answer this question on a count of stupidity

[EnderWiggin]

I prefer to think of it "the result of naturally occuring events". "Accident" implies that intent is somehow inherent.

 

Because it does. Seems pretty simple, eh?

 

Seems like a cop out to me...

 

You're saying "Because it exists" in response to the question "Why does it exist." It's not actually an answer.

 

The fact that the universe is does not present a reason as to why or even how it came about.

 

Because conditions that allow life to exist are present.

And those conditions are.... what? Just lucky? I mean, how is it that the specific conditions just so happened to be here on this planet that's just the right distance from the sun?

 

 

I personally like to believe that a being of greater magnitude created the universe using scientific means.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Seems like a cop out to me...

Not at all. There is nothing stating that the existence of the universe requires a purpose. It's like asking why that rock is there and not somewhere else.

 

You're saying "Because it exists" in response to the question "Why does it exist." It's not actually an answer.

I suppose that might be true if you believe that the question requires an answer. I do not

 

The fact that the universe is does not present a reason as to why or even how it came about.

"How" is one thing. "Why" is another. "How" definitely has an answer (somewhere). There is no reason to assume that this is also true for "why".

 

And those conditions are.... what?

Well, for life as we know it, carbon, liquid-water, heat, etc.

 

Just lucky? I mean, how is it that the specific conditions just so happened to be here on this planet that's just the right distance from the sun?

I imagine that if water was sentient, it would marvel at how perfectly it conformed to the glass it was in

 

I personally like to believe that a being of greater magnitude created the universe using scientific means.

I personally like to believe that I will someday acquire the gift of flight and the ability to shoot spaghetti out of my fingertips. Doesn't mean there is any evidence to support the thought that it will actually happen

[Corinthian]

Okay, let me put the question in perspective, since none of you seem to get it.

 

He's asking "Do you believe the universe is a product of intervention, or by random chance?"

 

Geez, you don't need to beat the same horse over the head six times because he used the wrong term.

[Jae Onasi]

My opinion....

All the current science knowledge indicates that a Big Bang happened. I don't buy the idea that the singularity formed out of nothing. Anyone know anything else that's formed from nothing? Believing that would take more faith than believing in a creator of some sort. I think God created the universe, devised the exquisitely intricate principles we call 'science', and guided the development of the universe along those principles.

[Achilles]

Anyone know anything else that's formed from nothing?

Besides god?

 

If he/she/it/they doesn't require a creator, then neither does the singularity. We don't get to suspend the rules of logic for some hypothesis but not others.

 

Believing that would take more faith than believing in a creator of some sort.

Why is that?

[Ghost Down]

Jae, you said God created the universe, science and everything else. But, who created God? And who created the ''creator of God''? And so forth.

[Jae Onasi]

My opinion....

Created things need a creator. God, being omnipotent/omniscient/eternal and not created, does not need a creator. This is a being that exists beyond space, time, and matter (in order to be able to create such things).

 

Do I have proof? No. Do people have proof that the universe just beamed in out of nothing? No. At some point, we all have to acknowledge that something outside of this natural universe and thus supernatural, caused this natural universe to come into being. Even agnostic scientists acknowledge this.

[Darth InSidious]

Jae, you said God created the universe, science and everything else. But, who created God? And who created the ''creator of God''? And so forth.

This argument only works if God were defined as:

 

a) Material

b) Affected by time.

 

Christian definitions of God usually define Him as being Spirit, and existing in one eternal 'moment'. Linear causality is not a useful concept to apply to omnipresent deity, in short.

[Ray Jones]

Where do you think the Uninverse came from?

Three little words: quantum foam.

 

Was its creation an accident?

No. And yes. Then again, it wasn't exactly created. More like -- it got sucked into space-time, like when a doughnut fills itself. The accidental/non-accidental part is of the same nature as if you would try to hold your wee like forever: no question what is going to happen, but when, where, and to what extend is impossible to tell.

 

Or is it part of some grand plan?

Yes. Evolution of the universes. There are plenty of them. Some of them, like ours, even have life in them. Astonishing.

 

Why is there life?

Because it fits nicely.

 

What is the meaning of it?

To go where it's possible.

 

In other words, why does the Universe exist?

God created it as part of a big overhead creation just to make a small place called Earth for us humans to live on.

 

But then again, maybe it exists due to the fact that no one can hold his wee forever.

[Achilles]

Created things need a creator.

Fair enough. However if we suspend the assumption that the singularity was "created", then the problem is solved, correct? You don't appear to have any problem suspending that assumption for god, so it's not as though we don't know how to do it.

 

At some point, we all have to acknowledge that something outside of this natural universe and thus supernatural, caused this natural universe to come into being. Even agnostic scientists acknowledge this.

Why is this? If the singularity occurred naturally then I don't see why we should consider it supernatural.

 

Christian definitions of God usually define Him as being Spirit, and existing in one eternal 'moment'.

What evidence do we have that would allow us to conclude that this definition is correct?

[Totenkopf]

Apparently the same evidence that your position is equally valid. Chance are that we'll never know, barring God and an afterlife, where any of this actually came from in the first place. Both sides, theist and atheist, have little more than beliefs when it comes to answering this question.

[Jae Onasi]

You don't appear to have any problem suspending that assumption for god, so it's not as though we don't know how to do it.

 

Sigh.

 

I know you enjoy making biting comments. Apparently this creates part of the fun for you to be here.

 

I don't want to argue religion with you anymore--all it does is lead to hurt feelings because I can't separate your arguments from the way you sometimes couch them so unpleasantly. I'll ignore your posts in religion threads so I don't contribute further to the tension that already exists. Feel free to skip over mine.

[jonathan7]

Three little words: quantum foam.

 

Isn't that two words?

 

Where do you think the Uninverse came from?

 

The big bang started by God.

 

Was its creation an accident? Or is it part of some grand plan?

 

A grand scheme.

 

Why is there life? What is the meaning of it?

 

To love God and love your neighbour.

 

 

In other words, why does the Universe exist?

 

The universe exsists because God decided to make it.

 

Fair enough. However if we suspend the assumption that the singularity was "created", then the problem is solved, correct? You don't appear to have any problem suspending that assumption for god, so it's not as though we don't know how to do it.

 

Do you not a) have science breaking its own rules to have the big bang be true? b) Do you really have any expanation of why nothing would suddenly explode? At least in my limmited expierance when you combine absolutely nothing, with nothing; nothing happens.

 

Why is this? If the singularity occurred naturally then I don't see why we should consider it supernatural.

 

How can the singularity have possibly occured naturally? See above.

 

What evidence do we have that would allow us to conclude that this definition is correct?

 

The fact we're here? The big problem at least to me is, why is there somethign when there should be nothing?

[Achilles]

I know you enjoy making biting comments.

Nothing biting there. I was simply observing that you already know how to make the argument.

 

Do you not a) have science breaking its own rules to have the big bang be true?

Do I not have the systematic process of aquiring knowledge breaking its own rules? Not sure I follow.

 

What "rules" of physics do you think need to be violated to support the argument for the big bang?

 

b) Do you really have any expanation of why nothing would suddenly explode?

First, it wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion

 

Second, I provided links to two popular hypothesis in my very first post in this thread.

 

At least in my limmited expierance when you combine absolutely nothing, with nothing; nothing happens.

Right. Except that the singularity would be "something" rather than "nothing".

 

How can the singularity have possibly occured naturally? See above.

See aforementioned links (Post #5)

 

The fact we're here?

This doesn't answer the question. Our being here is only evidence for us being here, not for the existence of the judeo-christian god.

 

The big problem at least to me is, why is there somethign when there should be nothing?

If the universe occured naturally, then you have to accept that there is no answer to this question. There is no over-arching agenda or master plan. Things happen because they happen. We are here because this planet has/had the conditions necessary for life (as we know it). There is nothing stating that there has to be a "why".

[Ray Jones]

Isn't that two words?

Five, actually.

 

 

Do you really have any expanation of why nothing would suddenly explode? At least in my limmited expierance when you combine absolutely nothing, with nothing; nothing happens.

Which leads kind of inevitably to the conclusion that there might have been something and not nothing.

 

 

How can the singularity have possibly occured naturally?

Oh, that is easy. Take a mass and compress it. When you reach a critical point of compression it will collapse into a singularity on its own. It happens all the time, on the big scale, when stars are collapsing, or in the micro cosmos when particles collide.

[Totenkopf]

Five, actually.

 

 

Last time I saw this kind of math was on Midnight Run.

 

Do you really have any expanation of why nothing would suddenly explode? At least in my limmited expierance when you combine absolutely nothing, with nothing; nothing happens.

 

Which leads kind of inevitably to the conclusion that there might have been something and not nothing.

 

Which brings us back to the question of where did it all come from. Neat little circle.

 

 

 

How can the singularity have possibly occured naturally?

 

Oh, that is easy. Take a mass and compress it. When you reach a critical point of compression it will collapse into a singularity on its own. It happens all the time, on the big scale, when stars are collapsing, or in the micro cosmos when particles collide.

 

Right, so the singularity didn't simply just exist. It resulted from the compression of mysteriously present matter. Still leaving the question of where it all came from. Circle completed again.

[Ray Jones]

Last time I saw this kind of math was on Midnight Run.

The last time I took three away from five, it gave two.

 

 

Which brings us back to the question of where did it all come from.

But the question was "Where did the big bang singularity came from?" ^^

 

 

Right, so the singularity didn't simply just exist. It resulted from the compression of mysteriously present matter. Still leaving the question of where it all came from.

For instance it could come from another universe that collapsed earlier. Anyway, basically it existed in that kind of "space" where all universes have their roots.

[Corinthian]

According to your rigid, almost slavish adherence to the laws of physics working exactly how they appear to work by human eyes, everything has a beginning and presumably an end. So, let's chuck all this crap out the window about strings and planes and all this other good stuff, and home in on the crux of the issue.

 

What's the start point? I think we can all agree that the 'Banger' didn't form out of nothingness, unless we've gone from scientific discussion to a Soft-Science Nightmare.

[Ray Jones]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation#Quantum_fluctuations