Can science explain the existence of the universe?

Question

Science explains much about reality, yet it does not account for why the universe exists. Many scientists take the position "the universe just is", but that avoids the question "what has caused the universe to exist?" If science does not address the question, then it falls to philosophy to do so. Religious people have answers which they state with certitude based as much on faith as on science. The scientist who cannot explain what has caused the universe to exist must, by logic, acknowledge that the existence of the universe is a great mystery. And to admit that mystery is to allow the possibility that the universe depends for its existence upon a Creator. What do you think?

By "existence of the universe" I also mean the cause of the big bang.

To allow the possibility of a Creator is not to assert a Creator exists. Yet, to allow the possibility of a Creator is more reasonable than to assert a Creator does not exist.

There is no basis in logic to state with certitude that a Creator does not exist.

phishpish: I never stated it is reasonable to assert a Creator exists. Perhaps you need glasses?

Answer 1

although i cannot say what caused the universe, although i do somehow believe that it was science, i find that it does not matter to me, in that our lives are here on earth, not within the boundless expansion of sky. In the theory of the earth being created, i believe that a metiorite collision somehow caused the earth to come into existence, which i explain by just coincidence and science somehow. i know this is not the clearest answer or the one you were looking for and i apologize, i just know no other way to explain it. I believe peoples belief in the theory of the universe and earth being created by science has not so much to do with belief in science, but disbelief in god. Some people just have never understood the concept of god, some people have events that have happened that suggest there is no god, and some people just find it unreasonable or impossible. I think the main purpose of our life is to do good here on earth and to live and love and discover to the best of our abilities the mysteries of the world, because wheather the world was created by a creator or by mere scientific coincedences, we are here.

Answer 2

They are working on it and I am sure that when they find out what the reason is we will all be very surprised indeed.

To argue for a creator based on ignorance seems a bit of a folly though.

"Why is that pooh brown?"
"I dunno."
"God must of made it!"

You could actually use that to justify almost any statement you chose. God made it, Dwarves made it, Chinese made it.
Anything becomes possible and therefore a fact following that line of reasoning.

Anyhow, I have different reasons for not believing God exists and for believing the bible is the greatest story ever sold.
At least science has the ability to admit it has no answer for that question
Religion is for people happy to accept any answer
The trap is that if you believe you have the answer you quit looking for one.
If you quit looking you quit learning.
Religion loves that, because then it has happy dumb people to control.
-----------
What makes it more reasonable to assert a creator exists? Be careful it is not your choice of words tripping you. If you quit referring to the universe or reality as "Creation" then the need for a creator become much less apparent.
At one time people believed that the earth was flat and if you sailed far enough you coulf fall off the edge. Why was it more reasonable to assume there was an edge instead of what we now know. The world is a ball and has no edges. Be very careful of the assumptions behind your words.

-------------------
Kudos to Amanda. She deserves a round of applause. If this went to voting she would get my vote.
-----------
There is no basis in logic to assert that God(s) do exist either.
God is an unnecessary hypothesis
http://skepdic.com/occam.html
--------------
You said;
"Yet, to allow the possibility of a Creator is more reasonable than to assert a Creator does not exist." That seems to be claiming the idea that God exists has priority over the other options. I repeat, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.
It is also a failed hypothesis.
Read the link and understand why. Assuming a creator fails to explain anything. It also makes it more difficult to ask reasonable questions. If the universe works according to the illogical whims of a supreme being that makes any question of what causes thing to happen utterly meaningless. The only answer becomes "God did it."
Saying that God created the universe only moves the question of first causes a step back. It then becomes the question of what caused God to exist. If everything needs a Creator then God needs a Creator too.
I believe Man was God's creator. Something to let the religious feel they had "The" answer.
It is far more reasonable to say we do not know and not posit the existence of a God at all. Positive or negative.

Answer 3

Science is to reality as a person is to a chess game. The best it can do is observe, understand and if fully understood, manipulate it to it's advantage. But even the most complex achievements of human kind cannot begin to compare to the marvel of any living thing, no matter how small or insignificant that it may be.

That being the case let's make a comparison. Let's compare the most advanced computer known to man, which is more complex than most people will ever even dare to try to understand, to a blade of grass from it's beginning to it's end. The seed. The sprout. The blade. The seed recreated. So complex that we don't know what makes it grow, we only know it does, and a good measure of the mechanics of it. It is infinitely more complex than that computer. We cannot create a seed. We can only plant it. I hope we can agree on that.

This being the case, and knowing that a computer could not possibly be here without a creator, then how can we even consider that all of creation "just happened"? There is so much creation to consider!! From the microcosm to the universe. Not seeing creation all around you is like not seeing the forest for the trees.

The rest should be elementary. For something to be created it requires a creator. Religion explains that gap.

We have heard the story of the 4 blind men who encounter an elephant for the first time. One feels the trunk and thinks it is like a snake. One feels a leg and thinks it is like a tree trunk. One feels its side and thinks it is like a wall. And one feels the tail and thinks it is like a rope. When they begin to talk about the elephant they argue, and each knows he is right. Yet all are only partly right, and therefore wrong in their conclusions.

In the case of religion, whether eastern, western, agnostic, or atheist, we believe only that which we see. Perhaps, like the blind men, we should listen to one another, find our common ground, and go from there.

For me, God has saved my life, and made me whole again. I praise His holy name. May each of you find in Jesus the love He is so willing to give. To those who doubt the word of God,as clearly written in the Bible, I believe it is because the Bible is a territory you have not explored. You may be surprised at its worthiness.

Answer 4

Yes... and it does.

Why would you object to matter and energy always existing? It's well established that you can neither create nor destroy matter and energy so what's so difficult about accepting that at least MATTER has always been?

It's simply existed in MANY many different forms.

By the way, the Big Bang explains the universe as it currently exists. What explains the existence of this creator? Oh, wait, is the creator allowed to have "always existed" but the matter which makes up the known universe isn't?

If you want to know how the Big Bang "worked", read up on it. Here, I'll give you a few links:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/seuforum/bigbanglanding.htm

Answer 5

You keep changing the question as you proceed with the "explanations". If aliens did exist, could we explain how they exist? yes. Even if we do not know if they exist, could we explain how they COULD exist? yes. Can we prove they exist? no (at least, not yet, as there is simply no evidence on which we can "practice" science) Can we prove they don't exist? no (at least, not yet, as there is simply not enough information on the conditions that exist out there compared to the conditions needed for life). Life on Earth is proof of... life on Earth. It is proof that life CAN exist in the universe. However your question began with specific reference to "aliens" which I understand, in this context, to mean "life OTHER than life on Earth". In that case, we cannot use life on Earth as evidence of life elsewhere. Science CAN show that there is (so far) no reason to think that life elsewhere is impossible. Mathematics (very specifically: statistical analysis) can show that life elsewhere is very likely. But that is NOT a scientific proof. The problem with statistical analysis is that it is only right "most of the time" (in many analyses, we like to add, after the conclusion "19 times out of 20"). The problem is that we do not have 20 universes to test. What if our universe happens to be the "20th ouf of 20"? The same statistical "proof" that is used to show that aliens "probably" exist, can be used to show this: If you consider ALL the numbers, the probability that a number is an integer is small. The more accuracy you put to a number, the smaller the probability that a number taken at random will be an integer. At the limit, with an infinite accuracy, the probability that a number is a perfect integers turns out to be 0%. Exactly 0%. Therefore, according to this type of statistical analysis, the number 7 (an integer) cannot exist. It is the same approach that is used to say: there are so many stars, so many planets, etc., that if the universe is infinite, then there MUST be life elsewhere. Sure, the formula shows 100% at the limit. Just like it shows 0% for integers (it is the same rule being used). Therefore, without some "evidence" from elsewhere than Earth, science cannot prove that life exists elsewhere. Wishing that it exists is not (yet) sufficient. --- Apparently, there is a lot more to life than just being "close enough to our star for water to be in liquid form". --- The meteorite from Mars "proof" has been disproven so long ago that most of us don't even remember it. What the meteorite contained is a mineral that COULD have been formed by lifeforms... or by some inorganic process. Since the inorganic process is one that does exist on Mars, it cannot be ignored. That mineral is more likely due to the inorganic process.

Answer 6

Good points. Even the meaning of the word "science" refers to "knowledge". Science is what man has so far figured out about a world he does not fully understand. It is perhaps what has been tested and tried and proven to repeat itself under certain circumstances, but that's about it.

Because "science" is simply man's knowledge so far, there's no way it can "scientifically" explain what it doesn't have the means to test. Even then, it only goes so far.

The beautiful thing is that even one shred of evidence that something has a design or purpose points directly at an original Designer or Purposer, which is the Creator... and there are millions of such examples all around, not to mention every single individual on Yahoo! answers right now.

Answer 7

Science makes progress toward understanding the universe and its components.

It does so by observing phenomenon and exercising reason upon the observations made.

While the insertion of a Creator may serve as a stop-gap measure to reduce the ambient anxiety which arises when the mind confronts unanswered questions, it does nothing to further the state of knowledge.

A. J. Ayer, in "Language, Truth and Logic" suggests that metaphysical speculations have no value in reasoning.

Answer 8

those scientists that do not believe in Creation as set down in the Book of Genesis, subscribe to the BIG BANG theorey of creation, and Evolution of the species. The best movie ever made to define both sides is called INHERIT THE WIND, starring Frederick March and Henry Fonda. Watch it--several times, like I did. Each time through you pick up something from the fantastic dialogue you may have missed the previous time. I have watched it at least a half dozen times and will never grow tired of it.

Answer 9

Guatama the Buddha rejected Metaphysics. You should consider that too. No one can find causes or answer questions about why. The universe needs no cause. I do not see any real logic that says one must consider nonsense. I see much evidence that gods do not exist. Holy books prove that quite well. Several smart men have said this in effect. to invent a creator causes many problems but solves none. You cannot answer why your God exists, what caused him or who created him. I can answer that last part. Moses invented a deity he called Yahweh, and it became god to english Christians, dieu to french ones, dios in Spain, kami in japan, etc. Your argument is not logical at all.

Answer 10

Gosh!!!! Not this question again. Science tries to explain unlike the creationists who say God made it all. It is just like the creationist saying that God just is. So, where did this God come from? Is God just is?

Neither side can explain how the Universe came into being and both sides will argue for eternity.