ya i understood your post, it was an assumption with no backing. not even a logical backing by you, you just made an assertion that you assume is correct.
nothing gives me the right, my point about this whole god/no god thing is not one fucking atheist on this board has given me one thing to think about or can answer a simple question. they just hold on to there dogmatic beleif like religious people yet they ridicule them. im not religious, im open to reason, you and the other atheists are closed minded reductionist materialists. thanks for answering my question by the way, i guess if everyone avoids it they wont have to admit how stupid there position truly is. keep singing about being an atheist and grilling religious people, while your doing the same thing as them all along.
What created the universe?
Well i am no scientist but I interest myself about it... I don't believe in the "seven days universe creation", I try to mantain my thoughts pragmatic and listen/read some rational explanations, and that's all we have, because no religion has the answer, religion proves nothing... Here it goes:
Observations of the expanding universe
Our modern picture of the universe began in 1924, when Edwin Hubble discovered galaxies external to our own. He measured their distances with the aid of Cepheid variable stars. The luminosity of Cepheids is directly proportional to their period of variation. He also discovered the recession speed of the galaxies from observing their red shifts. We now know there are around 1011 such galaxies in our universe. Through determining their distances and velocities, we also know they originated at the same point in space.
Albert Einstein's model of the universe
In 1915, Einstein completed his general theory of relativity. His equations predicted that the universe should be expanding. But Einstein, with all other leading scientists, believed the Universe was static. He therefore added a "cosmological constant" to his equations to give them a static solution. This represented a force opposing space-time's inbuilt tendency to expand. Only Alexander Friedmann was willing to take general relativity at face value.
Alexander Friedmann's model of the universe
Friedmann assumed that, from wherever in the universe we look, the universe looks identical in every direction. Then in 1922, before Hubble's discoveries, Friedmann took Einstein's equations (without the cosmological constant) and produced explicit models of an expanding universe. Friedmann’s work was unknown in the West until similar models were discovered in 1935 by Howard Robertson and Arthur Walker.
Friedmann's model predicted that about ten billion years ago the distance between galaxies must have been zero. At that point in space-time, the density of the universe would have been infinite. Mathematics cannot handle infinite numbers, so general relativity breaks down at this point. Such a point is called a singularity. In 1922, Friedmann suggested the Universe emerged from such a point-like singularity—this was the origin of the big bang model. But the proof of this suggestion would have to wait for Hawking and Penrose in the 1960s. In Hawking's own words:
"Penrose and I could prove that in the mathematical model of general relativity, time must have a beginning in what is called the big bang ...[where]... the whole universe we observe is contained within a region whose boundary shrinks to zero... This would be a singularity, a place where the density of matter would be infinite and classical general relativity would break down."1
In summary, the mathematical model of general relativity breaks down when you approach the big bang. Our best model of cosmology does not provide an exact model for the origin of the universe. Neither do more recent scientific theories, from string theory to loop quantum gravity.
An oscillating universe?
Einstein preferred that there should be no beginning to time, because a singularity takes the origin of the universe beyond the reach of science. But Hubble's observations of galactic red-shifts ruled out the idea of a static universe.
The Russian scientists Lifshitz and Khalatnikov in 1963 claimed to prove that solutions of Einstein's equations involved sideways velocities that would would prevent the formation of a singularity. They thought that before its current expansion, the universe may have contracted. In going from contraction to expansion, they thought, a big bang singularity might be avoided.
But Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved their mathematics was wrong, but being subject to a repressive Soviet regime the Russians could not admit this. They later claimed singularities as a Soviet discovery!
But if there is a density of the Universe beyond which general relativity breaks down, then surely there is room for "sideways velocities". If relativity breaks down then anything could happen. So an oscillating universe does then become a possibility.
Did the universe have an origin?
Beyond the problems with scientific models of the origin of the universe, are philosophical problems. These were first discussed in detail by Immanuel Kant2. Bryan Magee has made a popular presentation of these, which he first encountered as a child.
"I know there was a day before yesterday, and a day before that, and a day before that, and so on .... [but] the idea of going back for ever and ever was something I could not get hold of."3
Magee later encountered Kant's presentation of this problem in the form of a paradox. We are here; but, to get here, an infinite number of moments would have to be traversed if there is no origin of the universe. But an infinite number of moments can never be completed, therefore we cannot be here. This paradox can also be cast in terms of causal events.
The principle of sufficient reason is an old philosophical rule, going back at least to Leibniz. This states that every event is caused by an earlier event. It implies every event must be preceded by an infinite number of events. This means there can be no originating event, if the principle of sufficient reason is correct. But it also means we cannot be here to experience an event, because an infinity of events must have happened before we could exist.
Magee continues...
"So, perhaps, after all, there must have been a beginning somewhere. But if there was a beginning, what had been going on before that? Well obviously, nothing ... otherwise it could not be the beginning."
If there was an origin of the universe what can you say about the time before the origin? Nothing. There was no time before the origin! If the big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, what was there 13.8 billion years ago? You can't even say there was nothing. All you can do is reject the question as silly, like asking about the volume of a line.
Conclusion
However difficult it is to think of there being an origin of the universe, including an origin of time, it at least seems possible. The only other alternative involves the traversal of an infinity of moments.
Given these philosophical considerations, Hubble's observations, and Friedmann's model it seems reasonable to believe there was an origin of the universe; and we know roughly when it happened. Most modern cosmologists, including Stephen Hawking4 believe that time did not exist before the origin of the universe. It's a belief that has been held by many great thinkers throughout history, and was probably introduced by St. Augustine who believed that God created time.
