Aldo_Anything Posted:

The principle of cause and effect does not apply IMO.

I worded poorly. The OP questions what created the universe. Your argument is that the universe is making copies (sometimes different) of itself. That doesn’t answer the OP’s question: Where does the ORIGINAL universe come from?

Also, who was the first to snipe?

MC Banhammer Posted:

I worded poorly. The OP questions what created the universe. Your argument is that the universe is making copies (sometimes different) of itself. That doesn’t answer the OP’s question: Where does the ORIGINAL universe come from?

Also, who was the first to snipe?

The universe as we know it may only be a low-dimensional reflection of a multi-dimensional continuum detached from time(s). I think there was no creation, only constant transformation.

Aldo_Anything Posted:

I think there was no creation, only constant transformation.

???

How can there be transformation of anything if it wasn’t there to begin with?

Sergeant Cid Posted:

Aldo, if you believe in the ‘Primordial Particle’ or ‘Cosmic Egg’ theory (essentially, the ‘Big Bang’, in which all the matter of the universe was hypercondensed into a particle smaller than any subatomic particle in existence), then you have to address the question of the origin of that particle.

Where did it come from?

MC Banhammer Posted:

???

How can there be transformation of anything if it wasn’t there to begin with?

I’m talking about E=mc². Energy transforms into matter and vice versa. We may only be able to go back to seconds after the big bang, but that does not mean that there hasn’t been one before.

Energy is universal and wasn’t created.

Aldo_Anything Posted:

Energy is universal and wasn’t created.

I so don’t understand you.

Where did the energy come from, then?

Sergeant Cid Posted:

So, all of the energy in the universe, whether it is currently in matter form or not, has always existed, into the infinite past?

Yes, and will continue to do so. Does that sound esoteric? For me, it’s all about energy and circuits.

Aldo_Anything Posted:

Yes, and will continue to do so. Does that sound esoteric? For me, it’s all about energy and circuits.

I have to agree with Aldo on this. Being able to grasp the concept of ‘infinite space/time’ is a doozy in itself- it screws with our perception of reality – in which we have a hard time accepting the fact there IS no beginning, and no end.

It always was, and always will be.

We compartmentalise time- which itself isn’t a man made construct(Only the numerous methods of MEASURING time we’ve created throughout man’s history are). Time is a measurement of change. Without time there can be no change. And again, time is unique perceptual experience in itself to each individual noting the pbumage of it.

Its all stories we tell ourselves, really. To help us make sense of this universe we NEED to percieve it as linear, because our consciousness has a beginning and an end.

“TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED…

HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO be HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.”- Terry Pratchett’s Discworld Death

or, if you favor the big bang…

“In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”

Moniker Posted:

Most of what I’d like to to say has already been said here, so this will likely be short.

OverclockedJesus and man-man put it succinctly. “Who made the universe” is begs the question, and it’s illogical to stop an infinite regress by making up something out of whole cloth.

Shii, you attempt to solve this problem by defining something outside of nature, which is irrational on the very face of it. As there is nothing outside nature which has even approached demonstrability, let alone a “supernatural creator” to whom one might ascribe a number of other characteristics, it is wholly unscientific to bumume such a thing exists. We do, however, know that the universe exists – so with the data we’ve got at hand, it makes the most sense to bumume that it has always been around and always will be.

Finally, there was no “before” the universe, because the universe exists in no less than four dimensions. I’m talking about time, here. To say something like “before” the universe or “after” the universe is a non-sequitur of the very worst kind, in the same way “outside” or “past” the universe is absurd.

These questions boil down, ultimately, to faith. Faith is an unsubstantiated belief; something which one holds to be true in spite of a lack of evidence. There is evidence for the universe, clearly, and so it behooves us not to make things up which would violate all known laws of physics. We leave that to quantum mechanics.

QED.

If I’ve screwed something up, it’s the beer talking, and I hope someone will correct me. It’s just that I find first cause arguments to be so ridiculous as to be unworthy of extensive thought.

lmao yep the most logical and scientific thing to do when you can’t explain somethings origin is to go “welp that musta just always been there Log in to see images!

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Begs the question that the universe was made. Rejected as such.

whoa i missed this, 1st post. Do you have a radar for internet arguments about God and the lack thereof?

Moniker Posted:

On the other hand, the universe does exist, and apparently of its own accord.

Umm… No “apparently” about it. You can just as easily say “the universe does exist, and apparently by the hand of a creator” and be just as accurate.