can anybody explain to me how everything ( the universe and all that) were created without some supernatural b

Question

right, this is one of those typical philosophical questions but i know theres an answer to it. i consider myself to be atheist or at least agnostic but cant remember how everything could have began. ive heard this explained before in an interview with richard dawkins who has famously written books on atheism.

thats supposed to be supernatural being in the question by the way- don't know what happened there

Answer 1

You asked for it...

"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.

As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.

After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter.

After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, soon collected another neutron to form tritium. Rapidly following this reaction was the addition of another proton which produced a helium nucleus. Scientists believe that there was one helium nucleus for every ten protons within the first three minutes of the universe. After further cooling, these excess protons would be able to capture an electron to create common hydrogen. Consequently, the universe today is observed to contain one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen."

Answer 2

"If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe." Mass-energy may be limited, and the amount of USABLE energy may be decreasing, but that does not necessarily signify the end of the universe caused by the lack of energy to do work. The amount of energy remains the same. Total equilibrium of energy or "heat" in the universe does not mean the energy ceases to exist. It means that all things that require work as a function of energy to exist can no longer exist. However, the total amount of mass-energy will remain the same. You can state will absolute assurance that the universe has a beginning, only if you have absolute proof that the universe has an end. "The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning" Can we be absolutely sure that the universe had a beginning? If it has no end it has no beginning. Therefore it could have always existed. If "God" does not need a cause because He always existed, then why would a universe need a cause if it has always existed? How can we not be sure that the universe will not exist eternally in a state of equilibrium? What if the universe was not created for the purpose of human beings? "Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity." I agree with you there. Of course, a cause cannot be caused by itself. This is valid logic. On the other hand I do have one ponderous thought about time and God. If he caused the universes' beginning, he is a cause. Therefore, would he not be able to produce both cause and effects at His will? Time, like you've stated, "Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space.", is a rate of change. However, I believe that time is a product of any type of change. Or cause and effect. Therefore, would God not be living in his own time? Whether it be constantly varying in speed or not. As he is acting or changing time passes as an effect. Time will not exist only when absolutely nothing exists, including God. However, I am not stating with for a fact that there is not a beginning to the universe. I am simply using logic to seek the truth. However, like all humans I make mistakes because I do not know everything. I am simply using my understanding of what I "know" to produce logical explanations. Maybe there is information out there that proves the universe did begin at a certain instant and that all things in it followed. This is a very interesting question. I like that you used logic to support your argument. That is how it should be done. And don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to disprove you here. I want the same thing you want. The truth. I have questions and I am simply trying to find the answer.

Answer 3

Fifteen billions years isn't even a weekend in the existence of the infinity we were born into. The universe we observe today is the 'new' one. Trillions of millenia ago, the same 'empty space' existed with an entirely different set of stellar inhabitants. I haven't read Dawkins. But I assure you that the birth of our solar system isn't even a pimple on the butt of the Cosmos. And, for those who believe that God created it all, keep in mind He didn't just blow it all out of a soap-pipe. He would have done it embracing all the sciences available now and all that lie in our future. That's proven nearly every day, as all scientific study expands ... not to disprove God's exixtence but to simply explore the wonders he gifted us with. .

Most scientists would agree that the only natural power in existence, pre-matter, was 'vacuum', i.e., there was (still is) an infinity of vacuum, otherwise known as 'nothingness'.

This would put a tremendous strain on itself (space) over the period of eternity past.

As a simplified mathmatical formula, it may be said that a particle of the empty cosmos '0' (vacuum) = 1(+) and 1(- ) = 0 .................(= 0.)

Although this seems to give a value to 'nothing', the immense vacuum power of an infinity of space, could have suddenly split a given 0 into +1 and -1. It's even imaginable that this splitting was the opposite of splitting the atom, maybe more docile like sucking a sunflower seed out of its shell.

We have known there are electrons and positrons. These earlier particles, that I'm positing, could have given birth to the first elements of the first elements.

The Big Bang is only a localized answer and probably happened an infinity of times over the expanse of eternity and infinity. It doesn't answer your question because it was just an uncontainable bundle of hydrogen that couldn't withhold itself anymore.... at it's core many nuclear events occurred, spewing out matter that had materialized in its nuclear ovens over mllions of millenia.
The 'expansion of the universe' is not even in the ballpark that you're inquiring about. The cosmos, or 'ALL THERE IS' has no bounds so doesn't have to expand -- it's eternally eternal. We mortals have difficulty with that, but if there are 'walls' bounding the cosmos, what's beyond the walls?

Answer 4

A "simple" model of the origin of the present universe from nothing is given in the book, "The Happiest Beings are Nihilists, Part I: Zetosophers, " which also shows that many "arrows" point to the truth of metaphysical nihilism. Basically, it is argued that the universe is a zero sum state that evolved from the simplest zero sum state of nothingness.

Biological evolution is a nihilistic process in which "x" comes from "non x." Consider x = life, sex, consciousness, conscience, rationality, intelligence, etc. Two billion years ago there was nothing even close to a living being and a billion years ago there was nothing even close to what we call intelligence (just the rather undeveloped ability to respond to changes in the environment). Of course, even given a billion years of life, there is only a modicum of intelligence now.

By analogy, x = existence came from "non x," non-existence or non-Being. The universe is nihilistic to its empty core. Significantly, the universe is mostly empty space and even the bastion of materialism, the atom, is mostly empty space.

While analogies prove nothing, they often show that people are looking at things backwards, that is, engaging in wishful thinking. Those who derive the world of imperfection from an impossibly perfect god are a perfect example. The well-balanced world is imperfect in all respects, and obviously not the product of design of a supreme intelligence, and it is still evolving from the initial state of zero-balanced imperfection, still creating new "x's" from earlier "non x's."

Physics has been consistent with metaphysical nihilism since the 1920s. See the work of Ed Tryon, who hypothesized in a 1973 Nature paper that the present universe is a cosmically inflated "quantum vacuum fluctuation." He showed that the total positive energy of the universe is approximately equal to the total negative energy of the universe. That is, the total energy of the universe is approximately zero, exactly as required if metaphysical nihilism is true. Nihilism says that any complete conservation law in physics must sum to zero.

Fascinating stuff. Though hard to understand, the hypothesis of evolution from nothingness is much simpler than "the god hypothesis" that Dawkins rightly castigates. Compare "Mrs. Darwin's Dilemma," a kind and gentle (non-Dawkinsian) exposition of the genteel philosophy of "zero sum happy nihilism."

Answer 5

There are entire books that explain this. There's no way you can cram ALL if it, in complete layman's terms, into a little internet post. Go research cosmology. Then go research biology.

And the old "God of the Gaps" argument doesn't hold. Just because we don't know something, doesn't automatically mean "therefore a big invisible man did it". Also, this doesn't answer anything about the world or how it works. Finally, it begs the question fo who created God. If you say that God "just is", then there's no reason you can't say that the last thing you couldn't answer "just is".

Answer 6

The Big Bang. But I could have also said that there was a time when people believed the rising of the Sun was due to some supernatural being. Explaining natural phenomenon by "god didit" was wrong then and it's even wronger now since we know better.

Answer 7

I'll put it this way. If you go to a fishbowl and tell the fish that outside of that bowl is an entire city and beyond that a planet. And tell him about evalution and how he became a goldfish in a tank. Not only would the fish not understand, but wouldn't even recognize the noises coming out of your mouth as being a means of communication. He doesn't have the intellect to possibly understand. It's too complex for his little mind. THAT is how it is for us. It's too complex for us to understand. It's probably not as simple as "someone created us" or nothing did. We don't have the mental capacity to understand. Just like explaining how the tank was made to that goldfish.

Answer 8

Go read the books Mr. Dawkins wrote and if your common sense kicks in read the bible then if you can't make up your mind then you still made a decision

Answer 9

the universe consists of matter and blank space. blank space means emptiness which need not be made or created. as regards matter it is indestructible and cannot be created but only transformed. matter was never created. if we were to say that some supernatural force called God created, we may well ask who created that supernatural force called God.

Answer 10

We make too many mistakes thinking in material terms.
God is not a being as we would think, but more like the first dimension of reality. Which poured forth and made other realities, and is all those realities.