The kalam argument remains unshaken.
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore the universe has a cause
The cause preceded matter and time and must have therefore been spaceless and timeless. The absence of time and space only allows for a supernatural explanation.
I just really wanted to see other points of view. Something had to initiate the first cause. I believe that it all breaks down sooner or later to God. From the very beginning there was a big bang. I just happen to believe that since there was a big bang.... There had to be a big banger! :) God banged it!
How logical would it be if you put a randomly generated string of code into a computer, and it came out to be a COD game? Pretty ridiculous right? Well isn't it just as ridiculous to say that we came out of randomness? We, who are 10 million times more complex and powerful than any COD game? Programs need a programmer, and life needs a maker. God is real, and anybody who doesn't believe is in need of help.
I agree with "Whatever begins to exist has a cause".
Now the opposition to this states " but then who created the Creator". The answer may well be "The Creator was never Created".
But science seems to indicate the Universe with time as we know it had a beginning. The Creator may exist where time is not a parameter of that state of existence. When we think of creation there is a time parameter. But when The Creator creates, it may be done with a much differently.
Try to comprehend something existing without a beginning. We can't and that is the problem with humans trying to determine if God exists or not. We can assert such a thing but we really can not understand how it is possible.
You cannot just have a string of big bangs going back indefinitely. You would have an infinite number of chain links, each holding up the next link, but nothing holding up the whole. There must be an initial cause that pre-dates matter and time and is therefore spiritual and timeless, or infinite. This would mean that the initial cause is immutable, which is exactly what the Bible describes. Timeless entities have no cause for they have always been. Temporal, physical entities obviously have a cause.
God obviously created the universe and all the natural things like humans and animals. Things don't just evolve or come into place. There always has to be something to create it. For every creation, there is a creator behind it. So I think God is the only cause of the start of the universe
Our world could have no beginning or end. There's no reason yet to assume it had to have been created, the "big bang" itself could be a repeating cycle. If it were to have had a beginning, it may not have originated from anything conscious or alive. And even if that "thing" were conscious and alive, it may not be all powerful or all knowing, but possibly just as futile and oblivious as us. As of now, we have no evidence to say a creator of any kind is needed, we're more likely just the effect of a long line of reactions that we continue to experience today.
It's intellectually dishonest to point to things we don't know, assume its god and then use that as argument to prove god. We don't know that caused the big bang, we don't even know if their was a cause to the big bang. You can't look at the universe and apply the same logic you do to what occurs within it. You have decided that everything is caused by something because that's what we observe, but there are plenty of natural truths that are intuitive to us (for example quantum mechanics). There's no way we can conclude what caused and why does the question ask "what else could be the cause" implying the physical possibilities can only be drawn from the conclusions of humans.
The big bounce theory is that the universe continually changes in a pattern similar to a sine wave. The universe has been expanding since the big band and that expansion has been observed continually. The theory states that eventually the force of gravity will become the dominant force in the universe, due to a decay or lack of dark matter, and will become too strong and the universe will start to decline and compact until the universe is compacted into the smallest space possible. Atomic bonds will break, creating blackholes until all the mass of the universe is taken into one black hole and the black hole absorbs itself. Due to an unknown force that we are not aware of, or just by nature, the force of gravity weakens and the universe is allowed to expand itself again. This is a mass over simplification of the process as I understand it. It involves loop quantum gravity, which links gravity to quantum mechanics, the modern understanding of the atom and sub-atomic particles, making it highly probable. While the theory lacks some explanations, it is very accurate to what we can explain and comprehend, as it is very hard to comprehend ideas like time and gravity in such a non-linear way.
This theory has strong evidence to suggest it is possible and only leaves spaces for later information, unlike the bible, which just simply states that he did it, without proof or explanation. That is significant as it makes the theory potentially provable by advanced, undiscovered experiments.
Though prior to the big bang, all matter in the universe was beyond even the sub-atomic level, it still existed in some form prior to the event. Science has discovered that the universe is still expanding and that has lead to theories about what would happen when the universe reaches it's limit. Though some state it could just fly apart like a burst balloon, others theorize that it could collapse back into a singularity and that may cause another big bang. If that theory is true, then it is likely that the big bang that created our universe was not the first but one of many big bangs. That would mean that a prior collapsed universe was the cause of ours.
Our brains would like there to be a simple explaination to how the universe came about, but why must there be? We don't know if there is life on other planets, don't know how consciousness works, what the hell is dark energy & dark matter? Just because something is counterintuitive doesn't mean it is wrong. I believe that most of the innovation that will take place in the next 1,000 years will seem like divinity to humans of today's age.