Who created the universe the creator lives in?

I think the common logic is that everything needs a cause, therefore there is a first cause which does not need a cause.

No, it doesn't make sense.

(And to repeat an earlier point, since I think this thread needs it. The big bang is not "the creation of our universe", it is a a description of a particular phase in the development of our universe, not what "caused" it.)

Even accepting the "uncaused cause" what follows is then the move of tacking along a few characteristics to make that cause an agent. Never really seen much of an argument for that part.

It seems the ideal is to make a logical argument. The reason I suspect that it is seen as better to have an argument following valid logic than merely an intuitive argument.

I understand that and disagree. This is evident in computer programming, where a function that does what you tell it to do can make for just as bad (if not worse) errors than a function that merely throws an error.

1) Math looks wrong. Why are you adding the probabilities like this? From what I understand, P(A | B, C, D...) = P(A) / P(B, C, D...). Seems like you're saying

P(A|B, C, D...) = P(B,C,D...) + (1-P(B,C,D..)) * P(A)

2) Poor assumptions. Seems like you pulled all of these numbers out of your ass.

3) Poor logic. Big Bang and fine tuning are not not proof of a creator. We can explain the fine tuning of life through natural selection, which does not necessitate the existence of a creator.

Who created the creator?

A programmer's wife tells him "Go to the shop and buy a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, buy twelve". So he buys twelve loaves.

And the twelve loaves of bread feed thousands, of people. But no swine. They ran off a cliff.

My definition of God or Creator is the universe itself that has always been there. The Big Bang is something that happens not by chance but by the laws of the universe. The universe you are talking about is just the part of the universe we know, not the whole universe.

The universe clearly wasn't created by chance but that doesn't necessitate "purpose".

how so?

The irony of 2+2 and this thread is that if I told you there was cheating on a poker site you would need me to provide some data points proving it.

But if they tell you in school that a Big Bang happened and everything formed from nothing for no reason most people would say ok science and believe it hook line and sinker.

Where are all the mathematical minds in tnhis forum questioning the Big Bang as having no empirical evidence???

God takes a lot of heat from people claiming there is no proof but where is the scientific proof we evolved from monkeys, live on a spinning ball, and everything formed from nothing? Darwin claimed “transitory fossils” would be found and never were found there’s literally no explanataion anyone can give for this other than evolution is a load of bs. Adaptation can explain away everything in evolution. Just like relative density can explain away gravity.

Science has become the new age religion where people blindly believe with a blind faith in what their professors and teachers and media and politicians have told them. I’m not saying all science is bad just the science that can’t be repateble observable and testable using the scientific method.

If the bing Bang is bs... then it opens the door for an intelligent designer

The proof in said designer is in the handy work. When you look around and see the intelligible all around you know it was put there in purpose with intent and design.

Are you a jehovahs witness? These are the sort of arguments ( I use the word loosely) that I hear from them when they stop me to debate in the street

Are you saying theres no evidence that supports the big bang theory?

The 2 pieces of evidence that I know of , are

1)Red shift of light from distant stars, which means that stars are moving away from us.

2) background microwave radiation, which is the residue of the energy of the big bang.


You can claim that the big bang theory is incorrect, sure. Do you have anything to support that claim? The big Bang theory is the best explanation we have thus far, for what we see in the universe( stars moving away from us, background radiation,etc).



evolution,change over time, is as much a fact as anything can be. The scientific proof is in DNA, in fossil records ( yes, there are transitional fossils), in biology. Again, you claim theres no evidence. You are wrong. You can dispute the evidence, sure, but you have to show why its wrong, you dont just get to claim "its wrong" or "it doesnt exist"



Even if the big bang is true, it still leaves room for an intelligent designer.


What does it mean to see the intelligible all around? I dont see anything particularly designed about a tree or a rock.

Yeah, these are very misguided objections.

The big bang theory made some pretty striking predictions when it was suggested, and it was therefore met with some hefty resistance (from among others Einstein).

It is the fact that these predictions have been met that has given the theory the position it deserves, so to suggest that "it has no evidence" basically means that you do not know your subject or you have been listening to lies.

If you are going to offer your opinion on scientific theories, you should learn about them first. There is enough ignorance in the world.

Doesn't mean that there aren't alternatives to the theory. This part of physics is certainly conjectural. And again, if you had known the subject before you offered your opinion on it - you would have known this as well instead of speaking as if the big bang theory is treated as some kind of gospel. Which is an insult to hundreds of thousands extremely intelligent and reflective people that works in this field.

Angry paragraphs that take no planning or knowledge to make will never topple a renowned astrophysical theory.

Big Bang does not leave room for God...

God is an intelligent designer not random happenstance.

You should research the Michelson Morley experiment like I have which makes me question Einstein and relativity maybe then you’ll know what I’m talking about

Can you describe it in your own words?

Sure I’ll try...

You know when you’re in a boat and there are ripples in the water.. say you wanted to use the ripples or waves to figure out the movement of the boat. Using that idea Michelson and Morley tested the light waves in northern and western or two directions at a right angle. If the light waves traveling through the “aether” bounced back at different speeds you could then use the differences in the waves to come up with and detect a movement for the Earth. The result of the test was null aka no movement.

In response to this test and in order to explain away the Aether Einstein came up with the theory of relativity.

What part of the Michelson Morley experiment made you question Einstein and relativity theory?

The fact Einstein came up with relativity to explain away the Aether..

Science leads to answers not the other way around.

Is there any proof that something like aether exists? It looks to me like Einstein was trying to come up with an explanation that does not posit a phenomenon that is unobserved.

God could start or cause the big bang, and then it wouldnt be random happenstance.

He did? Do you have a link or something to show that he came up with relativity in order to explain away aether?

They don't tell you this in school because it is wrong. The Big Bang theory is not a theory on how the universe came to be, it is a theory on the development of the universe from an early stage.

If you are going to object to a scientific theory, you should at the very minimum hold a basic understanding of what it actually is.

I used to agree with everyone about Big Bang when I came out of school I was fully indoctrinated and believed the pseudoscience...

I understand the official science I just think it goes against our senses and reality.. when you dig a little deeper you realize a lot of what you are taught in school isn’t accurate.