What proof do you have that the universe was created instead of just happening on its own?

Question

Other than the word trick of calling it creation instead of The Universe or The World.
Can any of you actually prove that it was created.

Going voting

Answer 1

No, which is a slight problem when trying to present their argument empirically.

Answer 2

Well, they have faith, which is fine, but it isn't proof in the scientific sense.

What some of them claim, however, is that the universe is so complex that it could not have arisen on its own. They use the analogy of finding a 747 in wheat field. Do you surmise the 747 sprang into form on its own, or do you think someone made it? Then they extrapolate to -- look at the planet earth, and life on it -- do you think it "just happened" by accident and from a soup of energy, matter coalesced on its own, and clumped together, ultimately forming complex machines called living organisms? They claim it is highly unlikely that such things could just happen.

They also claim the universe to be perfect - in perfect harmony -- everything acting according to set rules and that such perfection could not simply arise, but it must have come about through a creator.

They may be correct. After all, there are some scientists now who believe they can create universes in the laboratory. Google it. It's true.

I suppose it is possible God is a scientist who created us in a laboratory......

Answer 3

There are many reliable methods which indicate that the Earth is quite young and therefore corresponds to the creation mentioned in the Bible. The complexity of life and even the human body attest to a Creator versus "chance".

Concentrations of elements and/or compounds in the oceans (e.g., uranium, sodium, nickel, cesium, potassium, copper, gold, tin, aluminum, etc.) should be much larger than they are if the Earth were ancient. As they exist now, however, these concentrations suggest a very young planet. The existence of natural gas under high pressure—in oil fields covered by porous rocks—provides a good indication of a young Earth. In his classic volume, Prehistory and Earth Models (1960), award-winning scientist Melvin Cook reported that, based on the quantities of natural gas at such pressures, the upper limit of the age of the Earth would be around 10,000 years.

See source for complete articles.

Answer 4

Whenever we argue about whether a thing can be proved, we should distinguish five different questions about that thing:

1.Does it really exist or not? "To be or not to be, that is the question."
2.If it does exist, do we know that it exists? A thing can obviously exist without our knowing it.
3.If we know that it exists, can we be certain of this knowledge? Our knowledge might be true but uncertain; it might be "right opinion."
4.If it is certain, is there a logical proof, a demonstration of why we have a right to be certain? There may be some certainties that are not logically demonstrable (e.g. my own existence, or the law of non-contradiction).
5.If there is a proof, is it a scientific one in the modern sense of 'scientific'? Is it publicly verifiable by formal logic and/or empirical observation? There may be other valid kinds of proof besides proofs by the scientific method.

The fifth point is especially important when asking this kind of question. I think it depends on what kinds of proof you will accept. It cannot be proved like a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus. For example, the question of the existence of life after death is not on the one hand a logical tautology: its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, as a Euclidean theorem does. On the other hand, it cannot be empirically proved or disproved (at least before death) simply because by definition all experience before death is experience of life before death, not life after death.

If this question cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.

If, however, you insist on using science, I need to point out the three laws of thermodynamics which, simply stated, says that things run down. Clocks don't wind themselves up, water doesn't run UP a waterfall, heat is dissipated when left alone, etc. That is to say, entropy is at work, which is another way of saying that order de-volves into chaos, and not the opposit (that is to say, chaos doesn't evolve into order. Try shuffling a new deck of cards and see if the cards are more or less chaotic after shuffling them.).

If the universe is running down, and if the universe had no beginning, then - logically - we have a contradiction. If it is eternal, then it would have run down by now. The fact that it is still in the process of running down implies that it is not OLD enough to be dead yet, like a candle that is still burning.

To say that it (ie the universe) is not old enough to be dead yet demonstrates that it has a specific age, and thus a beginning.

If you point to a "Big Bang", in which the entire universe was once encased in one giant (or tiny) "egg", then I have to ask how long has that "egg" been there? If it's been there an infinite duration of time, it would have already exploded and lived and died by now. If you say it's not old enough, again I point out that this implies a beginning.

If you say that tis "egg" (from which the entire universe exploded out of) existed for, say, 100 billion years, then I must ask what was there 101 billion years ago (or even 100 billion and 1 years ago)? If you say that this "egg" has always been here, then I must ask why it didn't explode any sooner, since infinity minus anything is still infinity, I conclude no matter HOW long this "egg" existed before it exploded, it would have still died down by now an infinite duration ago.

If you turn around again and say it isn't old enough yet, again I point out that this implies a beginning for this "egg".

The question I pose is this: Where did this egg come from? It is not eternal, nor is the universe; so it HAD to have a beginning, and thus, it HAD to have been created because something can not create itself. The universe can not cause it's own existence, so you either have NO universe, or you have a CREATED universe.

We see imprinted on the very fabric of this universe "Person-hood", that is order rather than chaos; intelligence rather than blind forces. I can only conclude that some kind of infinite Being, who transcends this Space-Time continuum, and that exists outside this MEST (Matter, Energy, Space, Time) universe preexisted this universe, a Being that has within Himself sufficient cause without any prior cause (in which the laws of matter and energy do not apply), is the original, uncaused Cause, the noncreated Creator, and seeing as how we have personality, then I must conclude with all that's been pointed out, that this Being is a Person of infinite magnitude. (Don't imply "physical" or "flesh" from the use of the word "Person", as I already pointed out, He would of necessity had to exist prior to any physical universe existed. We in the Christian faith refer to this "Other" substance as "Spirit".)

Answer 5

What proof do you have that the universe wasn't created? This is a debate with no ending, my friend. Neither can proove it. I just have a hard time believing that it "just happened" and that instinct is just instinct and the seasons just remember to happen at the right time and that a big huge ball called earth is hovering in space by itself without assistance. I believe there is a master creator who is responsible for the world as we know it and in control of it every day. Each morning is a gift from God himself.

Answer 6

Science operates by the law of causality. Without it, Science becomes null and void. What follows from it is that everything that had a beginning had a cause. The evidence points to the universe having a beginning (Big Bang, theory of relativity, cosmic background radiation) thus, it is a natural tendency to seek out a cause to the universe. Our natural laws are incapable of explaining this vast conundrum so some look to supernatural forces. It is fine to believe otherwise, but it would be complete blind faith, instead of reasonable faith.

Answer 7

They have "proof". It's all there in their Bible. Just read it, it will tell you that the world was created in 7 days.


Oh, you wanted proof of creation from something other than the story created to explain it? Sorry, can't help you there.

Answer 8

--SOUNDS LIKE you want to believe in your style of proof?
--DO YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE?
--PLEASE supply ultimate proof of science existing?
--THEN I will supply you with the ultimate proof that God created the world!
--OR DO YOU not think that science functions in true faith in the same way the Bible supplies proof, in view of this definition:

***(Hebrews 11:1) “. . .Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. . .”

--SO THEN do scientists believe in the "evident demonstration of realities" that they do not see?("though not beheld") in the ultimate, as you are demanding or do they function in belief(faith) even though:
1. They do not see the force of gravity , but only see the results!
2. They do not see the oxogen/carbon dioxide exchange in our blood stream and know that it does indeed happen to all of us!
3. The do not see Photosynthesis in its intrinsic workings, and wish they could understand it --so that a small factory could provide all the food for the entire world if in fact they could mimic its majestic workings!
4. ETC. ETC.
--SIMPLE RULE OF thumb for everything that exists:

***(Hebrews 3:4) “4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God. . .”

--ARE THESE PERSONS as stupid as the rest of us that believe in creation(not creationism) according to the "experts" that have answered already:
*** g92 3/22 p. 10 Lessons Learned From the Universe ***
--Famous scientist Isaac Newton concluded: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

*** pe chap. 7 p. 71 par. 4 Why We Are Here ***
--A professor of mathematics from the University of Cambridge, P. Dirac, said, in the magazine Scientific American: “One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that GOD IS A MATHEMATICIAN (my caps) of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."

*** hp chap. 2 p. 19 Does It Make Sense to Believe in God? ***
--Sir Bernard Lovell, of England’s famed Jodrell Bank Observatory, writes that his feelings are the same as those of Albert Einstein:
--“A rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”—“Centre of Immensities.”

--NEED MORE?

Answer 9

Well Im an evolutionist... but for the sake of argument, what proof do you have that it was not created instead of just happening on its own?

Answer 10

Science says that it didn't used to exist and now it does.
Science also says that every effect has a cause.
Science also says that the energy involved in the causing agent must be greater that the energy in the effect.

We call this causing agent God.

The real question is "Is God an active part of our lives today"

He is in mine.

Answer 11

If you demand proof of everything, you will have proof of nothing. You can't prove that the universe isn't a figment of your imagination--a "projection" of you consciousness onto reality.

Every so-called "proof" has at its base certain unproven assumptions. Thus, don't demand proof of everything. You'll deprive yourself of the consummate fulfillment of your humanity--viz. to love and honor God, the creator of the Universe.