Scientific flaws in this

[Wacko]

Hey!

 

Somebody I know said:

 

"The universe exists. The universe has a beginning (big bang) and an end (freeze). The idea of it collapsing again is absurd, what would cause that? The universe couldn’t have created itself, as it had to have been in existence first (common sense) in order to have done so. So, something OUTSIDE the universe created the universe. The universe is all space, time, and matter (theory of relativity). Something outside time created it. Could be an abstract idea, but have you ever seen a number affect something? What else is outside the universe? Nothing. So, nothing comes from nothing (common sense). Nothing isn’t the creator. So, it’s a disembodied mind that created it. It is outside time, space, and matter. It’s a disembodied mind because there is no other answer.

 

I can create a sand box, and I am not a sand box. I can still interact with the sandbox while remaining separate from it. In the same way, God interacts with us. I attribute this mind to the Judeo-Christian God. The logical answer is there, even if you are blinded to it."

 

I'm interested to hear why this argument is illogical from a scientific viewpoint. I know that it makes claims that don't seem right, but as I'm a scientist or even vaguely knowledgeable about such things, I would like to come here and ask what the counter-arguments for this are

 

 

Cheers

[doG]

The whole post is flawed. It needs to be moved to speculations. It's one assumption after another with ZERO supporting evidence for the assertions made. Mods????

Edited April 26, 2012 by doG

[mississippichem]

Moved to speculations.

 

Wacko, please post any non-mainstream science topics in the speculations forum. This smells a bit like religion though. If the thread takes that course, it will be moved to religion. Please say so if that is your intent.

[Phi for All]

From the assertion that the universe will end in heat death to the assertion that there is no other answer than that some disembodied mind created the universe, this argument leaps back and forth from shaky ground to thin ice, never so much as putting a toe near logic.

 

The only part that makes sense is we're God's sandbox. Does that mean He's the cat who's crap we have to put up with?

[Ringer]

If you say something, the universe, couldn't exist without being created why would the same argument not work for the 'mind' that created it. Would something not have to create that as well? Any argument saying that a creator does not need to be created then invalidates the first assumption that the something must be created before it can exist. The sandbox analogy doesn't work because it is just a structure put together using already existing parts. Nothing was created, things were only organized.

[John Cuthber]

There wouldn't be much point moving this thread to religion. The same tired old points are already made there- generally rather better.

If the OP had read the stuff that's on this site already he might have realised he was wasting his time and the site's bandwidth repeating stuff.

[ydoaPs]

Hey!

 

Somebody I know said:

 

"The universe exists. The universe has a beginning (big bang) and an end (freeze). The idea of it collapsing again is absurd, what would cause that? The universe couldn’t have created itself, as it had to have been in existence first (common sense) in order to have done so. So, something OUTSIDE the universe created the universe. The universe is all space, time, and matter (theory of relativity). Something outside time created it. Could be an abstract idea, but have you ever seen a number affect something? What else is outside the universe? Nothing. So, nothing comes from nothing (common sense). Nothing isn’t the creator. So, it’s a disembodied mind that created it. It is outside time, space, and matter. It’s a disembodied mind because there is no other answer.

 

I can create a sand box, and I am not a sand box. I can still interact with the sandbox while remaining separate from it. In the same way, God interacts with us. I attribute this mind to the Judeo-Christian God. The logical answer is there, even if you are blinded to it."

 

I'm interested to hear why this argument is illogical from a scientific viewpoint. I know that it makes claims that don't seem right, but as I'm a scientist or even vaguely knowledgeable about such things, I would like to come here and ask what the counter-arguments for this are

 

 

Cheers

 

The only sense in which it has a beginning is trivial. The universe has always existed and will always exist. There is no time at which the universe did not exist. The only sense in which the universe "began to exist" is one that there is no time prior to the Big Bang at which the universe existed. This also applies to God. So, if the universe began to exist, so did God.

 

Also, if the universe is all of space and time, to speak of an "outside" the universe is contradictory meaningless babble.