How did the Universe come to be?

[Conscentia]

Who are the 17 people who voted for steady state theory?

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Who are the 17 people who voted for steady state theory?

It sounds similar to the Egyptians and the primordal waters.

Or I'm fucking up my understanding of both on more than a few levels.

[Sun Wukong]

Who are the 17 people who voted for steady state theory?

I didn't, but I was tempted. It doesn't actually say, "Steady State Theory," it says, "everything was already here and has always been."

Which I find hard to argue with given that time is an emergent property of space. Everything always has been here, as there is no time when it was not. It's just that it's been here in an expanding way, consistent with Big Bang Theory.

[Sun Wukong]

Who are the 17 people who voted for steady state theory?

It sounds similar to the Egyptians and the primordal waters.

Or I'm fucking up my understanding of both on more than a few levels.

The primordal waters is a sort of general near-eastern thing. It's also in Sumerian and Jewish mythologies.

[Conscentia]

Who are the 17 people who voted for steady state theory?

It sounds similar to the Egyptians and the primordal waters.

Or I'm fucking up my understanding of both on more than a few levels.

How so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_creation_myths

Who are the 17 people who voted for steady state theory?

I didn't, but I was tempted. It doesn't actually say, "Steady State Theory," it says, "everything was already here and has always been."

Which I find hard to argue with given that time is an emergent property of space. Everything always has been here, as there is no time when it was not. It's just that it's been here in an expanding way, consistent with Big Bang Theory.

I had assumed that the option was referring to the belief that there was no beginning.

[Sun Wukong]

I didn't, but I was tempted. It doesn't actually say, "Steady State Theory," it says, "everything was already here and has always been."

Which I find hard to argue with given that time is an emergent property of space. Everything always has been here, as there is no time when it was not. It's just that it's been here in an expanding way, consistent with Big Bang Theory.

I had assumed that the option was referring to the belief that there was no beginning.

Yeah, I figured. It's just the OP worded it all shitty.

[Conscentia]

You have explained nothing. You have merely described this "God" thing as omnipotent.

From what I understand, your question was "what is a God." Answer: A God is a being that is omnipotent. Did I misunderstand your question?

Thy entire argument so far is "an inexplicable agency of inexplicable origin that inexplicably has complete control over the universe created the universe inexplicably for inexplicable reasons"?

That position explains nothing. It's effectively answering the question "How did the Universe come to be?" with "It just did, okay".

"What?"
Exactly. There's a proverb: God works in mysterious ways. We simply can't comprehend what he does sometimes. Those of us with faith don't see this as that great a problem. I'm sorry if you do, but I think this discussion is trying to explain why people believe in things, and sadly that's a question that has to be answered through first hand experience...

'God works in mysterious' is a thought-terminating cliché.

"Then how do you know this "God" thing created the universe?"
Therein lies the difficultly in explaining this concept. I believe he did. He spoke to me. If he hasn't spoken to you yet, I can kind of understand why you are uncertain that he created the universe. Sure, this sort of response is not exactly debatable because it's so subjective. Well, faith and belief are something that can't be reconciled when the other person dismisses it or does not believe that it is a viable way for a person to react with the world. It's a pity. :/

What?

Be honest and just say "I don't know - my religion provides no answers".
The answer lies in the Bible, for us at least. I admit that this answer does not please a lot of people, but I hope that God will reach them in time.

If the answer is in the Bible, then quote this answer.

The universe is no-one's creation. I advise you reading Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design".
Thank you for the recommendation. Again I suggest you read The Bible, and perhaps visit a nearby Church. Unfortunately, I am not a religious leader, so I'm almost certain that this discussion is not fruitful for you because of my lack of expertise.

I'm already familiar with Judeo-Christian mythology.

The Church's rhetoric explains nothing. I've been to Churches: Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox.
Perhaps you should spark a discussion with a priest, pastor, or other religious figure in those Churches, then. They can help you more than I can. Sorry.

They don't help at all.

You clearly have not understood how it is that free will violates cause & effect. Free will violates cause and effect because it claims that we control our action, while cause & effect requires our will to be determined by causes. Science has identified these causes to be psychological & neurological processes. These processes are in turn the result of complex chemical & physical interactions. These are in turn the result of very complex interactions between fundamental particles over which we have no control.

As I explain, there is no free will. Free will cannot exist as it would violate cause & effect. What you believe to be free will is in-fact an illusion of control.
Our actions are the result of complex psychological processes, which are themselves the manifestation of very complex neurological processes.

So you're basically saying that our actions are caused by our hormones (horrible paraphrasing, I know) and natural chemical processes. Well, it's obviously more of a philosophical concept. If you look at all of this biologically, simple drugs can change a man's point of view. Alcohol can muddle his mind and make him incompetent no matter how technically skilled he may be. The idea of God providing us with Free Will does not invalidate, say, the ideas of a subconscious (aka Freudian Slips), nor does it invalidate your argument (as even someone not trained in medicine like myself can see how drugs affect people's conscious actions). This idea requires the context of the Bible to be more clear, otherwise, as you say, taking it literally flies in the face of the physical sciences.

The idea of free will does literally fly in the face of physical sciences. That's my point.

The Bible will clarify nothing for you - some Christian sects quote the Bible in the arguments against free will.

It is depressing to think that people become can so invested in an idea that they cannot question it.

Perhaps. One might argue that certain people fail to question certain aspects of science when they contradict first person testimonies, like UFOs. You might call them conspiracy theorists or whatever, but since proof seems to be so critical to people who accept evolution or those in the scientific community who think that religion is insufficient or incorrect, well, have they proven those first person testimonies wrong?

(Will grab quotes if necessary, in all honesty they'll probably come straight from google.)

See:
http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

It sounds similar to the Egyptians and the primordal waters.

Or I'm fucking up my understanding of both on more than a few levels.

How so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_creation_myths

Ever present energy, "something" and "nothing" being simultaneously ever present.

But, like I said, may just be an asspull.

[Desmendura]

Then do so, otherwise I have to assume you have no arguement

The Big Bang was no flash or a bang.
It was a tiny dot that suddenly started expanding.

Agreed. And I think it was called the "Big Bang" because it happened so fast that it looked like an explosion. So yeah, I personally believe that the Big Bang formed the universe.

[Grave_n_idle]

And the problem with that is?

Not a problem, it only means that the universe is inherently non-nonsensical.

Either you have the "egg with no chicken" scenario, or you have the "ever present chicken" scenario of energy that was always present.

Either way, cause and effect goes up in flames, yet these are the only possible answers, that all is based on the impossible.

Cause and effect is irrelevant. Before the limits of space (and thus, time) are established with the creation of the universe, there IS no progression from cause to effect. It is that prime action that creates the environment in which cause and effect are linked.

[Breadknife]

all the perfect laws of physics.

You're being anthropocentric, maybe?
If there was a different ('imperfect') set of laws of physics, which yet created some form of enquiring and investigative mind capable of comprehending and/or deriving these alternate rules of the universe (or, like we have no doubt so far done, conjured up approximations to the actuality that work well enough for most purposes), I have no doubt they they could be said to be "the perfect laws of physics".

"Yes, of course the value of Pi is equal to the Gamma Function of the square-root of 2", might be the refrain by alternate-universe mathematicians...

[Deamonopolis]

Why is Anaxagoras not listed? He said the entire cormos was created from the mind.

[Breadknife]

Two universes collided, which made the Big Bang happen and boom.

Source?

Four different grandparent universes, obviously.

[Immoren]

Source?

Four different grandparent universes, obviously.

It's banging cosmoses all the way down

[The Solar System Scope]

Then again though, Alpha centuri, the closest solar system is 4.2 light years away. If LS travel was even possible (admittedly there's a possibility) it would still take 4 years, with our current tech it'd take around 70'000

We've only existed as a species for about 200,000 years. Most of our progress has been made in the last 10,000 years. Most of that progress happened in the last 500 years. If usable FTL is possible, I have no doubt it'll be achieved within the next 500 years provided we don't obliterate our species before then.

http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive

Correction: our species exist for a little less than 7 000 years.

[Mkuki]

We've only existed as a species for about 200,000 years. Most of our progress has been made in the last 10,000 years. Most of that progress happened in the last 500 years. If usable FTL is possible, I have no doubt it'll be achieved within the next 500 years provided we don't obliterate our species before then.

http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive

Correction: our species exist for a little less than 7 000 years.

Riiiiiight.

[New Zreuche]

We've only existed as a species for about 200,000 years. Most of our progress has been made in the last 10,000 years. Most of that progress happened in the last 500 years. If usable FTL is possible, I have no doubt it'll be achieved within the next 500 years provided we don't obliterate our species before then.

http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive

Correction: our species exist for a little less than 7 000 years.

If you would mind stopping with the trolling . . .

[Glovania]

#BigBangTheoryandnottheshowthatsucks.

[Wolfmanne]

God shat us out.

Ok, being serious now, personally I'm a theistic evolutionist and I believe there is a possibility God may or may not have caused the Big Bang. But that's more for my personal theology. I am 100% sure that the Big Bang happened in one form or another, and that's all that matters.

[Immoren]

God shat us out.

No, seriously, personally I'm a theistic evolutionist and I believe there is a possibility God may or may not have caused the Big Bang.

All hail mighty Azathoth!

[New Zreuche]

Hey, I have a suggestion. There seems to be a lot of bible quoting and stuff being thrown around in this thread, and I have a question

Since when did the stories and legends in the bible have any scientific fact. Admittedly, the bible is a very good source of historical info, not because it details many past events (though more in the form of stories) and has been influential in European history. Also, the bible is, by and by a pretty good guide to live you life-most western laws have their basis in biblical laws and the doctrine of the church. Another point to make is "What is the bible anyway?" Or more accurately "Isn't the purpose of the bible to lead people away from sin and promote a healthy society?".

With that in mind, I also ask "Why should the bible have anything to do with mainstream science?". The two manage very different areas, albeit the bible has certain details such as "And god said let there be light" and alot of other "historical facts". However these, of course are unlikely to be correct with our modern knowledge, but the point is, isn't the bible's purpose more to guide people away from sin, as opposed to explaining the behavior and history of the universe?

[Sociobiology]

what do those numbers have to do with time?
I mean that's like saying we should you base twelve to fit in with distance.

Hours and minutes are sixty minutes long.

which is just as arbitrary as twelve inches in a foot

It's an effective system because sixty has so many divisors.

so do many other numbers,

[Sociobiology]

And the problem with that is?

Not a problem, it only means that the universe is inherently non-nonsensical.

Either you have the "egg with no chicken" scenario, or you have the "ever present chicken" scenario of energy that was always present.

Either way, cause and effect goes up in flames, yet these are the only possible answers, that all is based on the impossible.

consider if cause and effect can be caused, or if time can start at some point.
your trying to figure out the universe with a brain built to avoid lions in grass, that's why we use testing and math.

[Grave_n_idle]

We've only existed as a species for about 200,000 years. Most of our progress has been made in the last 10,000 years. Most of that progress happened in the last 500 years. If usable FTL is possible, I have no doubt it'll be achieved within the next 500 years provided we don't obliterate our species before then.

http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive

Correction: our species exist for a little less than 7 000 years.

A curious assertion, given that there are human artifacts easily 3 or 4 times that age. What species were we when we created those, and what marks the point where we stopped being that species and started being this one?

[Grave_n_idle]

all the perfect laws of physics.

You're being anthropocentric, maybe?
If there was a different ('imperfect') set of laws of physics, which yet created some form of enquiring and investigative mind capable of comprehending and/or deriving these alternate rules of the universe (or, like we have no doubt so far done, conjured up approximations to the actuality that work well enough for most purposes), I have no doubt they they could be said to be "the perfect laws of physics".

"Yes, of course the value of Pi is equal to the Gamma Function of the square-root of 2", might be the refrain by alternate-universe mathematicians...

I love the argument that the universe we've evolved to be perfectly suited to... is perfectly suited to us.