Views on the Creation of the Universe

by simon17 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  simon17

  I was thinking the other day about the fascinating dichotomy of how the creation of the universe plays a role in the belief system of believers and non-believers. It is the difference between a top-down vs. bottom-up view of reality. In this post I'm mainly disucssing highly rational, scientific type believers and non-believers, open to fully exploring their belief system, of which I have talked to many.

  To the non-believer, the creation event, the Big Bang, is the one utterly unexplainable event. Everything else can be proved, demonstrated, or realistically hypothesized about. The impetus for the Big Bang is, essentially, without understanding. However, as a non-believer, I've built up everything I know about the world through science, exploration, confirmation, and I am ok with having that one pinnacle point in my world-view go unexplained for now.

  To the believer who is open to test their beliefs fully with rationality, the reverse is true. I've argued with such ones, JWs or not, over things like 607, the Great Flood, 1914, generations, laws, morality and on and on. And at the end, when I counter all their arguments, I ask, 'give me one thing that you can absolutely hang your hat on; one thing you feel I can not touch of which you are absolutely sure.' And at this they say, 'when I look at creation, I know something must have created it.' From the top, they place the apex of their belief as being that 'a God' MUST exist, and that pre-supposed conviction trickles down and influences every other belief or decision they decide to have.

  So ultimately I found it interesting: The creation of the universe for me is the one thing of which I am fully unsure. For the believer, the same event instead serves as the one unshakeable proof.
• 

  NewChapter

  Very good points. I find another one is abiogenesis. We haven't settled on a good theory for when life began, therefore, a god did it.

  Another thing I have thought a great deal about is how science effects religion and vice versa.

  When religion had its tentacles in science, it held it back. People that learned things that went contrary to the bible, were oppressed an prosecuted. Once religion lost its hold, science flourished. Today, religion does not direct science, and we grow in leaps and bounds.

  Not so the other way around. There are fundamental believers who would not be convinced that the black sheet of paper is not white no matter what you say. However, for the more reasonable (I suppose) they allow science to shape their religious beliefs. Has the Genesis creation account been falsified? No problem, it was alleghory or even a rouge account. Has science shown that the earth is not the center of the universe? Still not a problem, we just misunderstood. In other words, religion no longer changes science, but science changes religion every day. I find this odd. If religion offers all the right answers, then why is it so suseptible to science? And why did we only make progress when we finally set religion aside to take up the scientific method?

  Just some thoughts.

  NC
• 

  simon17

  Yes, I agree with both those points and have frequently pondered the same exact thoughts. Sometimes it is like we are of one mind (well, at least I feel that way since you post a ton. Me: not so much heh).
• 

  NewChapter

  Simon---you have a pm.
• 

  xchange

  I think regardless of any evidence available, many people find it absolutely inconceivable that the universe did not have some supernatural cause. Many will use the (various iterations) trite analogy of who/what built that house/watch, ad nauseum.
  
  Granted, I still struggle with the very concept but that is how my environment shaped my thinking. Cars, houses, watches, computers etc, are material things that began as an idea and eventually unfolded into a tangible object.
  
  But it still doesn’t justify making a huge leap into saying that therefore something supernatural created the universe only to assuage my own uncertainty.
  
  At the end of the day, it’s incumbent on me to be intellectually (yes, that word) honest and not default to the crude rumblings of my primitive brain.
• 

  Tekel

  "So ultimately I found it interesting: The creation of the universe for me is the one thing of which I am fully unsure. For the believer, the same event instead serves as the one unshakeable proof."

  Hi Simon17, If you aren't familiar with the subject of Digital Physics, sometimes described as "it from bit", I would suggest checking it out.

  The universe at its core is computational, all matter is just information. Viewing the universe from this perspective removes any "hows" or "whys" regarding pre-Big Bang. For a person like myself who is both a scientist and a person of faith, it provides metaphysical answers too. The goals of Digital Physics research are in no way spiritual, it's just a nice side effect.

  Incidentally, it's usually not the case that scientists are atheists. That has not been my experience at least.
• 

  smiddy

  Re: Views on the Creation of the Universe

  I"ll probably regret posting this,putting my big foot in my mouth.To me the question pre-supposes their was someone or something that did in fact initiate a creation event.

  The beleiver has no problem with that,though he/she has no problem stating that GOD has no beginning and no end.My point is ditch GOD and apply the same reasoning to matter and energy ,it`s always existed,no beginning and no end.

  The big bang occurs after the universe has reached a critical point in it`s expansion then implodes on itself then at its next critical stage the big bang occurs again , a never ending cycle of a big bang and an implosion which may take billions of years from one cycle to the next

  I find this explanation just as plausible or more so than someone who claims GOD had no beginning and no end.

  Just my 2 cents worth

  smiddy
• 

  Tekel

  smiddy,

  What you've described is called the Big Crunch, of all the possible future outcomes for our universe, this one is considered the most unlikely by scientists, most rule it out completely. This because of recent data collected which shows the universe is not just expanding but speeding up.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Spacetime itself is expanding. Relative to the size of the universe, our light cone is shrinking...
• 

  james_woods

  There is more unaccepted (or just plain wrong) science expressed here than conventional accepted science. More meta-physics than real science.

  For one thing, there is no evidence - none - that the universe will collapse back on itself and make another big bang.

  For another thing - the simple fact that there are scientifically unknown details about the beginning of the universe (the big bang) DOES NOT PROVE GOD.

  No more than the fact that a child finds a quarter under his pillow after pulling a tooth prooves the tooth fairy is real.