One of the problems with the concept of a god is that even though it answers the unanswerable questions of the origins of the universe, those same unanswerable questions can still apply to God.
Q) How was the universe created?
A) "God created the universe"
Q) Okay, then how was God created?
A) The typical answer: "He always was"
The problem with that typical answer is it's a cop out. How could God have always been? If that was a suitable answer, couldn't that answer apply equally well to the universe? Why couldn't the universe always have been? Why replace one unknown with another? What's the point?
The way I see it, time must go infinitely backwards. I can't imagine any other way to conceptualize time. You can't say there was a point where time began... because what happened before that point?
We always want to ask "how did X start", but if time goes forever backwards, then the whole concept of having a "beginning" is flawed. Although that's a difficult concept to get your head around. At least it is for me.
Now to address specific points:
TheNoobie wrote: |
---|
How could the vastness of our universe and the beauty of life and nature have possibly come from NOTHING? |
What makes you think there was ever nothing? The universe is just mass and energy. The only thing that's changed over time (that we can see) is how those things are arranged. Doesn't it seem more likely that over time, the universe just slowly changed and formed into what it is now?
Besides... the "God created it from nothing" scenario is a contradiction. Doesn't God count as "something"? Wouldn't his existence count at least as a form of energy? I mean if you have something (God), then it's not nothing.
In that event, even if a god did create the universe, he had to create it from at least himself. And if you want to say that... then that's just another way to describe energy and mass changing over time.
There is some type of "being" that started the chain of events that caused our universe, but there is no way this being is the traditional "God" we all know. |
I guess it depends on what you consider a "being". Does it have to be alive? What is your definition for "alive"? Do we want to stretch these terms to where they lose their meaning?
A virus consumes fuel for its survival and does everything it can to spread itself as far as it can as fast as it can. We (humans) consider viruses to be alive.
A fire does the same thing, but would you consider a fire to be alive? Perhaps the giant balls of fire in the heavens are the Gods that created the universe? Are they alive? Do they have consciousness?
Personally I don't think so. But who can say for sure? You get that much energy and that much mass tangled together and going for as long as it's has and who can say what it really is?
But if we're willing to settle for that as our God, doesn't that kind of defeat the point of having a God? After all, what good is a tangible deity?