Universe

[pratik]

Probably many of us here seek answer to one common question : How the whole universe came into the existence ? I am sure that few people here will jump in and post one line saying "God created the universe". Then who created the GOD ?!!!

I believe that the answer to this is not within the scope of human mind. Sometimes in our life, we believe something to be impossible. And many times it turns out that the reason for our belief was lack of some speicific knowledge. I think this holds true for the very existence of life and universe as well. Probably, the whole universe is a part of something that we can't even imagine.

I try to think of the universe in abstract manner. It is just an object of something. And it's there to perform some speicific operation. Think of a watch. And the universe is just the second hand. It keeps on moving without knowing why it's moving. It may know that there are two other similar hands that also moves..but they are very slow..but it doesn't know what they are there for. Only we do..

May be for there is no question of existence at all.

-Pratik

 

[Pah]

, the whole universe is a part of something that we can't even imagine.

-Pratik

But some scientists have imagined something beyond the universe and even how the big bang happened

It's all tied up in strings - well, string theory

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-04/NS-Ntft-1004101.php

New theory for the Big Bang

Our Universe didn't really exist until another one bumped into it

IT was mighty quiet in our Universe: devoid of all matter and energy. Then another universe collided with it. Suddenly space became a searing soup of particles and radiation, far hotter and denser than the centre of the Sun.

This, says a team of physicists, is how the big bang happened. The approach of the parallel universe caused the expansion of space, and the collision itself produced all energy and matter. A comprehensive description of this new theory has been submitted to the journal Physical Review D.

The model is a viable alternative to the theory of cosmic inflation, which was cooked up to solve some of the problems of classical big bang theory. According to inflation theory, the Universe underwent a brief period of exponential expansion in the first split second of its existence. "Our new model solves the same problems," says co-author Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who was one of the founders of inflation some 20 years ago.

So how might this primordial collision have come about? According to the theory, our three-dimensional Universe, known as a "3-brane" to cosmologists, is just one of the two boundary surfaces of a thin four-dimensional "bulk space", rather like one of the two surfaces of a CD. But there was another universe, or bulk brane, inside the bulk space which encroached on our boundary brane. When this "brane storm" led to a collision, the energy released resulted in the big bang.

Unlike inflation, the brane-storm model-dubbed the "ekpyrotic universe" by the authors of the paper, related to the Greek idea of "cosmic fire"-fits in neatly with the popular string theory of particle physics. "That's one of the exciting things about it," says Neil Turok of Cambridge University, another co-author.

"I'm delighted to see an alternative picture for the early Universe," says cosmologist Jim Peebles, also of Princeton. "It has been frustrating to me not to have any alt-ernatives to inflation, which I feel has been accepted by many cosmologists too easily." As for the credibility of the new model, he says: "I haven't heard my string theory colleagues complain. That's a positive sign." But if there are other branes floating around in 4-D bulk space, might we be in for another big bang? Turok says it can't be ruled out. Luckily, the fact that Newton's gravitational constant doesn't appear to be changing implies we're safe from a collision for many billions of years.

Additional links:
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

 

[Linus]

"God created the universe". Then who created the GOD ?!!!

I can't even count the number of times that this question has been asked, not only on this forum, but elsewhere. It seems to be a default argument for some people trying to debunk creationism. Unfortunaltely it frankly doesn't make sense. But in all fairness, others ask it out of pure sincerity and curiosity. Anyway, if you assume that God was created by someone/something then you must logically follow that someone/something created that. You must, therefore, assume that someone/something created that, etc. It would never end. I know it isn't a response to the main point of your post, pratik, but it is a question that bothers me. Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.

 

[chuck010342]

the answer is the God is infinant he doesn't not have a beggining and an end he is eternal. So it is illogically impossible to create God

 

[Linus]

the answer is the God is infinant he doesn't not have a beggining and an end he is eternal. So it is illogically impossible to create God

Amen, chuck010342. Very succinctly put.

 

[jewscout]

Some food for thought:
In Genesis it has always typically been translated "In the beginning G-d created...." but some have translated it as "In the beginning of G-d's creation of heaven and earth...". Rashi was one of the Jewish scholars who translated it this way. I've looked at this one section of the Torah and have come up with a few ideas on the creation vs. evolution/big bang theory issue.
The story of Genesis begins with G-d creation of heaven and earth, to me this is a metaphor for the creation of the earth and the atmosphere that we see when we gaze upward into the sky. So it is simply starting with the creation of our world, nothing about the solar system, how He created Mars, Venus, Neptune, Uranusbiglaugh: ). Or for that matter the formation of the Universe itself. What if (and this is just an idea i've kicked around) the story picks up at the creation of our planet because this is our story. What if G-d was hanging out creating other stuff way before us. For that matter he could have been doing an infinite number of things before getting around to us, maybe even dealing with one or more universes.
Which then begs the question could there be other alternative Torahs out there in the universe.

Then again i could be totally off base just some fun stuff to think about

 

[pratik]

I just want to prevent the post "GOD created universe." It just doesn't make sense to me and it's against my belief of creation of universe. I've seen at the forum that some people will just come and post "GOD did it" irrespective of the context !!

And if the logical question bothers you - it's not my fault. You will see the same question everywhere because it makes sense.

-Pratik

 

[lousyskater]

the answer is the God is infinant he doesn't not have a beggining and an end he is eternal. So it is illogically impossible to create God

if this god of yours had no beggining, and will hav no end, why cant the universe have no beggining? of course the scientific proof for the big bang is getting stronger and stronger, so it seems that the universe did have a beggining.the point that i'm trying to put forth is that it is entirely possible to not have a beginning. just because it doesn't work that way here on this speck of dust called earth, doesn't mean it doesn't work like that else where in the universe. we don't know everything about how our universe works yet, and i seriously doubt we ever will.

 

[pratik]

Well, I read the basics of Big Bang theory. It assumes the existence of the Universe. I'd call it a flaw in the theory. And that's what my whole post is all about. The reason of existnce of Universe. And I don't think it's within scope of our universe, same as it's not withing the scope of the second hand to understand it's function.

-Pratik

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So it is illogically impossible to create God

No, it's "illogically impossible" to create a God warranting belief.

 

[chuck010342]

if this god of yours had no beggining, and will hav no end, why cant the universe have no beggining?

because the universe had to have a beggining. Based on the first two laws of therodynamics.

of course the scientific proof for the big bang is getting stronger and stronger, so it seems that the universe did have a beggining.the point that i'm trying to put forth is that it is entirely possible to not have a beginning.

Nope the evidence is getting weaker and weaker. it is possible yes but not probable.

 

[Pah]

Nope the evidence is getting weaker and weaker. it is possible yes but not probable.

actually the cause has been found from string theroy

Bob