Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
if a "god" doesn't need a creator, why does the universe?
The bigbang theory offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and Hubble's Law. The known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density and temperature. By the way, if your holy tell us evrything we need to know, what was before the Planck epoch?
15 Answers
- ?Lv 56 years ago
I'm not saying the universe needs a creator, but I will say this: things don't appear out of thin air. How could the universe just explode into existence without some kind of push from an external force. And I'm still not saying God did it.
Source(s): P.s. I'm not a Christian - Annsan_In_HimLv 76 years ago
There could be no universe without time (for time was needed for matter and space to expand).
There could be no matter without material and material requires a source from which to form.
There could be no space that expands without means for expansion, which takes energy.
There could be no energy without a source for that energy.
And so you can go on and on, the point being that a material universe requires making. And it cannot be made the way it turned out to be made without physical laws to conform to (otherwise nothing predictable or measurable could keep happening and there would be total chaos that would mitigate against any life forming). And you cannot have laws without a law-giver. The humans who eventually came to understand the logic behind the laws of our universe did not invent those laws! They were in operation billions of years before humans came into being! Yet it takes a lot of intelligence to understand how those laws work. Anybody saying there is no intelligence behind the laws of physics needs their head examined.
The reason why the Creator does not need to be created is that He is Spirit, not matter - not material. He is described as dwelling in unapproachable light, and light is an energy source. You would think an immeasurable energy source would be a logical 'place' to start looking for the 'birth' of our universe, given the massive amount of energy required to get it going.
- Anonymous6 years ago
I don't know that the universe needs a creator, but it certainly needs a source. That which is finite needs a source, that which is infinite does not. If the universe is only 14.8 billion years old, then it needs a source. If god is finite, then god would also inherently need a source (assuming a god exists).
Source(s): Deist - ?Lv 76 years ago
The physical universe needs a cause because matter is finite (had a beginning and will end) and is contingent. The default state of energy as an immaterial wave form. Converting wave form energy to matter (particles) is the product of a willful conscious action. Matter ultimately will decay back into a wave form (low level thermal radiation) due to entropy. (Second law of thermodynamics)
God like energy is immaterial in nature and so like energy can neither be created nor destroyed. (First law of Thermodynamics).
Despite objections to the contrary, This is a non-trivial distinction and therefore the criteria for "Special Pleading" is not met!
Consciousness is fundamental, matter is a derivative of consciousness. Your argument therefore fails!
COMMENT: "matter is a derivative of consciousness" - Please provide a source for this nonsensical statement. Otherwise, we shall consider your argument a failure.
Pete · 1 hour ago
Certainly, Here is the exact quote:
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. "
Max Planck (You know the guy behind Planck's Constant, Planck's Law etc) As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)
Of course that was in 1931 - the experimental evidence validating Planck's hypothesis did not come around until 1998
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/98022...
I will grant you that Materialists have raised several objections to this interpretation of the evidence:
1. The thought experiments known as the Einstein Podolsky and Rosen Paradox (Effect due to Some physical undiscovered local hidden variable) Later formalized as Bells Inequality. Experimentally falsified in 1982 by experimental physicist Alain Aspect.
2. Leggett's Inequality (Some undiscovered non-local hidden variables). Experimentally falsified in 2007 by Anton Zeilinger.
3. Naive Realism : Experimentally falsified in 2011 when Kochen-Specker Theorem validated. and The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment: Kim, Kulik, Skully
4. Nonlocal Naive Realism: Experimentally falsified in 2012 Quantum Eraser with Causally disconnected Choice.
5. Leggett-Garg Inequality (Quantum applies only to subatomic realm not macro realm). Experimentally falsified in 2010 A. D. O'Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann...
The final nail in Materialism's coffin being experiments demonstrating that the cause (observation) is proportional to the effect (wave form conversion to particles) and is reversible (thereby violating Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/08080...
Simply put all of the scientific objections presented by materialists to challenge the matter is a product of consciousness interpretation of Quantum Physics have been experimentally falsified. Materialists therefore have no option but to deny the science as you do by calling it 'nonsensical'!
UPDATE: This would constitute a strong argument if all of the described phenomena could not be explained without the assumption of the Big Bang or if supporters of the Big Bang could come up with experiments or observations that rule out these alternate explanations. The Big Bang is a possible explanation for those things, but because an increasing number of unproven assumptions need to be tackled onto the Model for it to work, the principle of Ockham's razor actually gives these alternate explanations which require no such assumptions greater weight than the Big Bang Models.
- I Love/JW.ORGLv 66 years ago
Because he wanted to share life. what a loving God and father. (Isaiah 43:9-14;Psalm 83:18;Genesis 1-2)
Job 12:10
10 In his hand is the life of every living thing And the spirit of every human.
Job 27:3
3 As long as my breath is within me And spirit from God is in my nostrils,
Job 32:8
8 But it is the spirit in people, The breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding
Source(s): What Is God’s Purpose for the Earth? WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES God’s purpose to make the earth a paradise will be fulfilled.—Isaiah 45:18; 55:11. Satan now rules this world.—John 12:31; 1 John 5:19. In the coming new world, God will bestow many blessings on mankind.—Psalm 37:10, 11, 29. http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teac... - Anonymous6 years ago
because the universe isn't eternal, nor does it have a mind