How did the Universe come to be?

[Blazedtown]

The universe is nothing but a computer simulation run by beings of unimaginable power. We are nothing but lines of code. Lines of code reading translated lines of code. Rather ironic isn't it?

[Sun Wukong]

The big bang is a crap theory. How did all the matter come to be in the first place? The theory doesn't explain it. I say god created all the matter and forces in the universe. He created the matter that caused the big bang.

Matter is energy. And the universe has a net energy of zero. I'm tired of explaining this.

[Rabopari]

The big bang is a crap theory. How did all the matter come to be in the first place? The theory doesn't explain it. I say god created all the matter and forces in the universe. He created the matter that caused the big bang.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

If you're going to use that terrible logic, what created god?

I don't agree with what ShadowDragons is saying but NS is open to ideas.

[ShadowDragons]

The big bang is a crap theory. How did all the matter come to be in the first place? The theory doesn't explain it. I say god created all the matter and forces in the universe. He created the matter that caused the big bang.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

If you're going to use that terrible logic, what created god?

My theory might be bad, but the big bang theory still sucks.

[Regnum Dominae]

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

If you're going to use that terrible logic, what created god?

My theory might be bad, but the big bang theory still sucks.

That's not a coherent argument, nor does it answer my question.

[Microsol]

I highly doubt any of our uninformed opinions on the creation of universe are of any value.

[Rabopari]

I highly doubt any of our uninformed opinions on the creation of universe are of any value.

[Grave_n_idle]

I can never actually be perfect, or know everything.

That doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to be better than I am, trying to learn more than I know.

Self-improvement is great. But wasting time on something that you know cant be achieved is stupidity and has nothing to do with self-improvement.

So striving to understand that which we don't understand is stupidity? I'm sorry, I just find your value system depressing.

[Grave_n_idle]

I highly doubt any of our uninformed opinions on the creation of universe are of any value.

That certainly applies to the uninformed opinions.

Typically for the internet, however, those who are uninformed assume that no one else is informed.

[Great Kleomentia]

Self-improvement is great. But wasting time on something that you know cant be achieved is stupidity and has nothing to do with self-improvement.

So striving to understand that which we don't understand is stupidity? I'm sorry, I just find your value system depressing.

No, striving to understand that which we dont unsterstand is self-improvement. That is good. Striving to understand that which we can not understand is stupidity.

[Grave_n_idle]

So striving to understand that which we don't understand is stupidity? I'm sorry, I just find your value system depressing.

No, striving to understand that which we dont unsterstand is self-improvement. That is good. Striving to understand that which we can not understand is stupidity.

On the contrary, we can only know what we can't understand by striving to understand it.

Regardless, you're the one who thinks we can't understand. That's your belief, I guess. And that explains why you find the whole pursuit so pointless.

Me, I don't feel nearly so limited.

[Great Kleomentia]

No, striving to understand that which we dont unsterstand is self-improvement. That is good. Striving to understand that which we can not understand is stupidity.

On the contrary, we can only know what we can't understand by striving to understand it.

Regardless, you're the one who thinks we can't understand. That's your belief, I guess. And that explains why you find the whole pursuit so pointless.

Me, I don't feel nearly so limited.

I believe that humans are only limited with time. In reality there is no limit to anything, if there was then nothing would exist. The fact that there is no limit means we cant understand the creation, as it is the creation of eternity and infinity. The question itself is wether there was a creation or not. As time itself is a relative thing. So with a little thinking, one could come to the idea that we really cant understand the creation of everything, especially if it doesnt exist. Thus rendering the pursuit for the answer a waste of time which could be spent on useful and practical self-improvement. Though of course, i am merely human, there is no need for me to be correct about anything. So this whole idea of mine could be nothing more than just an idea. But still, as a human i chose to cling on to this idea, or at least until something manages to change my mind.

Also to add. We have strived to understand the creation since our history can record our existance. Man has always wondered, speculated and debated this. The fact that we are no closer to the answer after thousands of years may be a clue to something.

[Pope Joan]

I am inclined toward the "steady state" with, of course, fluctuations.

The actual Hebrew Bible text for BeReshith (Genesis) does not start with "In THE beginning", but "In A beginning".

So apparently there were or may be other beginnings. Why not? Why insist on being in any way special?

http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/dt/dt_bereshit.html

[Utceforp]

I am inclined toward the "steady state" with, of course, fluctuations.

The actual Hebrew Bible text for BeReshith (Genesis) does not start with "In THE beginning", but "In A beginning".

So apparently there were or may be other beginnings. Why not? Why insist on being in any way special?

http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/dt/dt_bereshit.html

Why do you consider the Bible in any form a credible source?

[Grave_n_idle]

On the contrary, we can only know what we can't understand by striving to understand it.

Regardless, you're the one who thinks we can't understand. That's your belief, I guess. And that explains why you find the whole pursuit so pointless.

Me, I don't feel nearly so limited.

I believe that humans are only limited with time. In reality there is no limit to anything, if there was then nothing would exist. The fact that there is no limit means we cant understand the creation, as it is the creation of eternity and infinity. The question itself is wether there was a creation or not. As time itself is a relative thing. So with a little thinking, one could come to the idea that we really cant understand the creation of everything, especially if it doesnt exist. Thus rendering the pursuit for the answer a waste of time which could be spent on useful and practical self-improvement. Though of course, i am merely human, there is no need for me to be correct about anything. So this whole idea of mine could be nothing more than just an idea. But still, as a human i chose to cling on to this idea, or at least until something manages to change my mind.

Also to add. We have strived to understand the creation since our history can record our existance. Man has always wondered, speculated and debated this. The fact that we are no closer to the answer after thousands of years may be a clue to something.

We only recently got a handle on what was happening with electricity, and that's a phenomenon we have known about for millennia.

I just don't see it as being quite as pointless as you do for this subject to still be being talked about. Quite the contrary. It's a field that has expanded more in the last half a century than it has in all of history to that date. Far from being done to death, this is a brave, new world.

[Boomhaueristan]

These debates are so frickin' pointless. Religious or not it boils down to: If god did it, where did God come from. OR. If the Big Bang happened, how did everything come from something and how did that something come from another something and it continues. Whatever, what I'm trying to say everything has a beginning and we'll never know the absolute truth.

[Mkuki]

I'm inclined to agree with the Big Bang theory.

[Tyriece]

The Big bang is a incomplete theory that is part of a bigger theory which is called the Ekpyrotic Universe theory. http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

No, it isn't. The Ekpyrotic Universe theory is an extension of M-Theory which itself is an extension of string theory. The Big Bang is not a part of the Ekpyrotic Universe anymore than it is a part of Eternal Inflation.

But there are things about it that make some scientists uneasy. For starters, the idea that the universe underwent a period of rapid inflation early in its history cannot be directly tested, and it relies on the existence of a mysterious form of energy in the universe's beginning that has long disappeared. Inflation is an extremely powerful theory, and yet we still have no idea what caused inflation. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20250302/

Uh...no. The idea behind what causes inflation is a "repulsive gravity" created by a negative pressure. We have observed such negative pressure during experiments and use Einstein's equations to make predictions about inflation.

There are many things that we are not sure of such as How did life begin? What is consciousness? What is dark matter, dark energy, gravity?
And if anyone here can fully answer these questions with there research I suggest you speak to the Norwegian Nobel Committee for your Nobel Peace Prize.

Was there even a point to this post other than to pretend you have a clue what you're talking about?

The big bang IS still part of the string theory, how ever it is used differently. Also while inflation in part is driven by negative pressure it is unknown what mechanism is responsible for inflation. Please do some more research and come back -_-

[Phoenixfox]

It was created by the Christian God in a process of 7 days. How long ago this occurred, nobody knows.

[Tyriece]

It was created by the Christian God in a process of 7 days. How long ago this occurred, nobody knows.

Is this a fact or your opinion?

[Phoenixfox]

It was created by the Christian God in a process of 7 days. How long ago this occurred, nobody knows.

Is this a fact or your opinion?

My opinion, since it cannot be proven as fact.

[Grave_n_idle]

It was created by the Christian God in a process of 7 days. How long ago this occurred, nobody knows.

Since 'days' wouldn't have existed until the creation of a timeframe, the whole 'in 7 days' thing is pretty meaningless.

[Sebtopiaris]

Wohoo! 100th big bang voter FTW!

[Trotskylvania]

No, it isn't. The Ekpyrotic Universe theory is an extension of M-Theory which itself is an extension of string theory. The Big Bang is not a part of the Ekpyrotic Universe anymore than it is a part of Eternal Inflation.

Uh...no. The idea behind what causes inflation is a "repulsive gravity" created by a negative pressure. We have observed such negative pressure during experiments and use Einstein's equations to make predictions about inflation.

Was there even a point to this post other than to pretend you have a clue what you're talking about?

The big bang IS still part of the string theory, how ever it is used differently. Also while inflation in part is driven by negative pressure it is unknown what mechanism is responsible for inflation. Please do some more research and come back -_-

No, string "theory" isn't really a proper theory yet, and to describe BBT as part of it is seriously ignorant. The basic principle of scientific correspondence requires that any succeeding theory must be able to incorporate all of the explanatory power of the previous theory. E.g., Einstein's general relativity will model the phenemona that had previously been adequately modeled by Newtonian physics as well the areas where Newtonian mechanics broke down.

But that doesn't mean that Newton's theories are "part" of general relativity. They clearly anteceded relativity, and so to claim they are part of the theory is completely anachronistic.

[Kilobugya]

We know everything that happened since the Planck time. We lack quantum gravity to understand what happened before the Planck time, so we just don't know. That said, the question "what was before Planck time ?" may not even more meaning than "what is north of the north pole ?" Time itself is a feature of the universe (be it an ontological simple dimension, like in classical GR, or be it an illusion, like in timeless physics) and you can't ask "what was before the universe ?", "before" depending of time.