How did the Universe come to be?

[Breadknife]

actually the Egyptians carried the length of an hour to keep 12 hours during night and day throughout the year.

Depending on how you mean "carried" (sorry, ambiguity in my mind) I think that's what I said.

higher division ability is secondary to being small enough for human grouping ability to work, 12 would be far better than 60.

But this is definitely something I mentioned, as a (NPI!) factor in any given choice of major divisions.

*puzzled*

edit: Also probably off-topic, which I realised after I posted the former, but forgot again when I decided to make this reply...

[Ponderosa]

The Big Bang. How that started? Who knows.

[Sun Wukong]

The Big Bang. How that started? Who knows.

Barry White.

[New Event Horizon]

Current evidence supports the Big Bang. Universal God has yet to comment.

[Sun Wukong]

Current evidence supports the Big Bang. Universal God has yet to comment.

"Oh who can remember? It was 13 billion years ago. And I was drunk."

[Elektra25]

The universe is the the domain of god the omnipresent alien force.

[Conkerials]

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe was once a singularity, and, as you may know, a singularity was infinite mass. Therefore, the size of the universe is not an effective argument against The Big Bang Theory.

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

The Big Bang
The Big Bang supposedly is something that just flashed and the universe was here. The entire infinite universe felt this flash, really? Do you realize just how big the object that created such a thing would have to be? Impossibly large to cover the infinite universe, plus we can't really prove the Big Bang actually happened, we would need the scientific method to prove this, and I don't see how we can. I think this option is illogical because of how infinite the universe is, also this theory just seems to be something scientists just put out there to counter the God theory.

A Universal God
As far as Gods go, we can't prove or disprove the existence of a God in general. What I mean is we prove Earthly Gods are fake, but generally the supernatural being that is a God is something we can't prove/disprove. Now let's go further with this, a universal God creates and sustains the universe. I can see it, but that would mean this God is taking care of the infinite universe at the same time, do you see the problem with this? This God can't be everywhere at once so it is illogical to say he sustains the infinite universe, let alone creating it, which is what he should still be doing because the universe is infinite. I think this option is illogical because why would a Universal God need to create material forms? He should already have everything in his utopia, there shouldn't be a need for creation.

My Theory
I can see 2 theories happening,1.) the infinite universe beginning when stars first formed, how I can't really say, maybe the particles that make up the sun existed at the same time back then. But as the universe is infinite, not all areas were suddenly developing, when the first suns developed they gravitationally forced all the other particles to orbit them and that created planets which led to galaxies, ect. Essentially gasses formed, made stars that put everything else in place.

2.) it's all a lie, just one big conspiracy set to fool us and keep us contained . Seriously though, my second theory is that everything was just here, there is no fantastic super amazing story behind it, it was just here. Of course this is the least likely of the two, but it's possible. There was no forming, no Big Bang, no God, everything was always here.

Actually, the original "big bang theory" was an ironic name. It stated that the universe was caused by a reaction which resulted in gradual expansion for billions upon billions of years on end. The Universe is not infinite, either. It does have an edge, but it is too far away to reach. Going past the universal edge and outrunning the universe would result in a blank void, theoretically.

[Greater Beggnig]

It was all shaped by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, using His Noodly Appendages.

Brother, I have been touched by his noodly appendage.
“We are not saying that Evolution can't exist, only that it is guided by His Noodly Appendage.”

[The Solar System Scope]

I read somewhere that evolution was denied by one famous scientist. I don't remember who, but I shall look it up. A magazine did also say something about that.

[European Socialist Republic]

I read somewhere that evolution was denied by one famous scientist. I don't remember who, but I shall look it up. A magazine did also say something about that.

If it was, he would've already won a Nobel Prize. He didn't, so...

[Great Nepal]

I read somewhere that evolution was denied by one famous scientist. I don't remember who, but I shall look it up. A magazine did also say something about that.

If it was, he would've already won a Nobel Prize. He didn't, so...

You win Nobel prize by denying most well understood and accepted theory?

[European Socialist Republic]

If it was, he would've already won a Nobel Prize. He didn't, so...

You win Nobel prize by denying most well understood and accepted theory?

If he managed to disprove it, then yes, he would've won a Nobel prize.

[Great Nepal]

You win Nobel prize by denying most well understood and accepted theory?

If he managed to disprove it, then yes, he would've won a Nobel prize.

Yea but The Solar System Scope just claimed "evolution was denied by one famous scientist".

[Czechanada]

What people need to understand is that time and space are inexorably linked, time did not exist before the Big Bang so one cannot ask "What was there before the Big Bang?" . So when the Big Bang started from an infinite mass that period can be referred to as t = 0. In a way, it means that the universe has always existed.

[European Socialist Republic]

If he managed to disprove it, then yes, he would've won a Nobel prize.

Yea but The Solar System Scope just claimed "evolution was denied by one famous scientist".

Oops, I somehow read that as "evolution was disproved by one famous scientist".

[Divair]

I read somewhere that evolution was denied by one famous scientist. I don't remember who, but I shall look it up. A magazine did also say something about that.

Doesn't matter if he denies it. Opinions mean nothing.

[Liriena]

I read somewhere that evolution was denied by one famous scientist. I don't remember who, but I shall look it up. A magazine did also say something about that.

It would be an argument from authority, so don't bother.

[The Silence of Night]

I read somewhere that evolution was denied by one famous scientist. I don't remember who, but I shall look it up. A magazine did also say something about that.

It would be an argument from authority, so don't bother.

Unless he was an evolutionary Biologist, in which case he has credibility on the matter.

[Mavorpen]

I read somewhere that evolution was denied by one famous scientist. I don't remember who, but I shall look it up. A magazine did also say something about that.

It would be an argument from authority, so don't bother.

...And? Arguments from authority aren't fallacious unless you are quoting someone who isn't an actual expert in the subject. I really wish people would stop using "argument from authority" as a placeholder from attacking the real problems with their opponent's argument.

[Breadknife]

I read somewhere that evolution was denied by one famous scientist. I don't remember who, but I shall look it up. A magazine did also say something about that.

That's not vague at all... In every aspect it is definitely a non-vague statement. Keep it up.

(I know I'm not always able to pin everything down when I want to make a post but... Imagine that once you resolved the details it turned out to be "I once read an historical interview in the Times from Charles Babbage¹ saying he hadn't put any thought about the possibility of evolution being anything like his analytical engine. It was an edited reprint of the original, being published in The Watchtower." Hardly a sterling effort of supporting the refutation (which is probably what you wanted to mean even if you can't fulfull any such promise) of the most up-to-date and experimentally tested/confirmed thoughts about evolution.)


¹ Not sure what Babbage's views might have been, I'm putting him there as a placeholder generic scientist, in leiu of a possibly defamatory remark about the several "scientists" in the Creationist camp who got unrelated or plain Mickey-Mouse degrees from some half-assed Correspondence Course or other in a very Gillian McKeith manner of authority and relevence....

[Liriena]

It would be an argument from authority, so don't bother.

...And? Arguments from authority aren't fallacious unless you are quoting someone who isn't an actual expert in the subject. I really wish people would stop using "argument from authority" as a placeholder from attacking the real problems with their opponent's argument.

Point taken.

Mind you, I was going by the assumption that it would be the typical case of a conservative ophthalmologist, or some other discipline that is not evolutionary biology, denying evolution.

[Mavorpen]

...And? Arguments from authority aren't fallacious unless you are quoting someone who isn't an actual expert in the subject. I really wish people would stop using "argument from authority" as a placeholder from attacking the real problems with their opponent's argument.

Point taken.

Mind you, I was going by the assumption that it would be the typical case of a conservative ophthalmologist, or some other discipline that is not evolutionary biology, denying evolution.

Yeah. That's probably a safe assumption to make, especially with how vague his post was.

[America Libertaria]

On my beliefs of the created of the Universe:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Oh cool you're quoting a 2000 year old fantasy story that was written by crazy people who had no knowledge of science.

[Glasgia]

The Big Bang
The Big Bang supposedly is something that just flashed and the universe was here. The entire infinite universe felt this flash, really? Do you realize just how big the object that created such a thing would have to be? Impossibly large to cover the infinite universe, plus we can't really prove the Big Bang actually happened, we would need the scientific method to prove this, and I don't see how we can. I think this option is illogical because of how infinite the universe is, also this theory just seems to be something scientists just put out there to counter the God theory.

Just put out there to counter the god theory? Seriously? The big bang's one of many theories, with hundreds before it claiming to have much logical backing. However, physicists now have much major evidence relating to the existence of the big bang.

For as start, the Big Bang didn't "just flash". The Big Bang is the point in which an incredibly small, yet dense, concentration of matter and energy imploded upon itself - An action observed on a far lesser, but still huge, scale with black holes. The resulting explosion flung this matter outwards, the first step in the growth of the universe that we see today. Currently, due to this initial explosion, the momentum is still carrying most matter away from the undefinable "core" of the universe and maintaining its expansion. The planets, such as our Earth, formed as protons collided with neutrons and electrons to create atoms, atoms crashed together to make molecules, molecules collided and formed specks of dust, slowly leading to lumps of rock pounding into each other and forming planets. I believe, though someone can correct me on this, the Earth only came into being about three billion years after the "bang" - It didn't just come into being.