If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

Why Did God Create the Universe?

Think about it for a moment. Let’s say you are God. You have always existed and then suddenly even though nothing has changed or can change you decided to poof create the Universe. Why?

If nothing had changed why wouldn’t God just keep doing what God was doing? What caused God to decide to one day (before there were days) to create the Universe? Now some theists will cop-out and say that the Universe was all part of his divine plan, but when did he make this divine plan? More importantly, why did he make his divine plan? God has been around (according to believers) forever. So at some point during forever, he decided for no reason to create a divine plan. What was God doing before his divine plan? Intelligent humans want to know.

Then I have some more questions for believers. So forever is going by and then for no reason God just decides to have a divine plan. For no reason at all, after doing whatever it is that God does, God decides to create the Universe. According to believers, God created the Universe special just for us human beings. But the problem is that the Universe is really, really big and we are just tiny little specks. Now can understand if believers thought that humans would someday be smart enough to explore the entire Universe that their God created for us, but that isn’t what believers believe.

Jews believe that the Messiah is coming to save them from more Earthly concerns. Christians believe that Jesus is coming to save them soon and take all who believe to Heaven soon. Muslims don’t even like modernity at all so they have no desire to explore the Universe. Besides, if they die now, they can get 72 virgins for the price on one.

The point is that none of the Abrahamic religions have any intention of exploring this great big Universe on religious grounds. So why would their God create such a vast Universe which had absolutely nothing to do with human beings?

Finally, if all things have a cause and all things come to an end, what will God do for the rest of eternity once the Universe has come to an end? God spent eternity before the Universe and will spend eternity after the Universe. So why would his spent a short period on non-eternity with a Universe? Why did God bother with a Universe at all?

Of course the obvious answer is that he didn’t. God is fiction and has absolutely nothing to do with the Universe. God was just a literary tool used by bronze-aged people to explain what they could not explain and were too afraid to admit their ignorance about.

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • http://www.poweressence.com/ Maxwell Jennings

    I had a former atheist-turned-christian argue with me that the Big Bang proved the existence of God creating. First off, the Big Bang is, in my opinion, a failed theory, and second, using scientific theory to support religious conjecture is pure dogma and doesn’t prove anything.

    I imagine that way back in early history of social structures and language, people began to question the reasons for existence. Some people realized that if they made up a story that ‘answers’ those questions, but also stirred the emotions and specifically triggered fear, they could not only influence people, but they could control people. Controlled fire, such as a campfire, can be very hypnotic and couple that with an elaborate story and you have the early forms of brainwashing.

    • existential blues

      Why do you think the big bang is a “failed theory”? There don’t seem to be many actual astrophysicists who agree with you. There’s a lot of evidence in support of it.

      I suspect you don’t have a good grasp on what the big bang theory claims.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      Maxwell, I too would like to know why it is your opinion that the Big Bang is a false theory.

      • http://www.poweressence.com/ Maxwell Jennings

        I guess I need to check back to see if anyone actually read my reply! It’s probably too late to post here for anyone to read, but I’ll compose something anyway. In short, the Big Bang is still just a theory and there is a much better theory in my opinion… I’ll return to post some links.

        • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

          Umm, Gravity is still “just a theory” too. Do you know the difference between a scientific theory and a layperson theory?

          • http://www.poweressence.com/ Maxwell Jennings

            Of course most cosmologists would NOT agree with me and I’m sure they can rattle off a good sounding argument to support what they’ve been taught, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they know what they’re talking about with regard to other theories. If anyone simply claims that someone else doesn’t know what he or she is talking about and dismisses another theory off the cuff, yet they do not support that claim of fact with verifiable proof and not more theory then consider that person a pseudo-researcher. I certainly do consider many well established scientists and professors to be pseudo-researchers. I find it disconcerting when supposed authorities on the subject of cosmology are confronted with evidence that negates previous theories and all they do is create more extravagant theories to prop up the failed theories.

            Just because a model (theory) fits evidence better than a different model does not prove that the better model is correct. Only one theory can be correct and all current models might be incorrect! I’ve read through a better cosmological model and in my opinion, and the opinions of some very qualified scientists, this other little-known model fits all the evidence better than the accepted model of which most people support. Again, it doesn’t matter how many people believe in a model or how well a model fits perceived evidence, or how much funding is laid in the laps of researchers, only absolute proof is acceptable. This other model does have sound laboratory experimentations to back up the main theory and they have no need to conjure up theoretical (and unproven) black holes, dark matter or dark energy to prop up failing theories.

            None of the following links are proof of the Electrical Universe theory, but the information does indicate a major flaw in accepted cosmological models. Evidence that the red-shift theory is more than likely flawed which indicates that the Big Bang theory is also flawed:

            Thirty Years Later
            http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050211thirtyyears.htm

            Quasar in Front of Galaxy
            thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm
            thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050610arptest.htm

            Fingers of God
            thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-god.htm

            Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang
            thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060904bulletcluster.htm

            The ‘Science’ of the Big Bang
            thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060823bigbangscience.htm

            So Far and Yet So Near
            thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050401sofar.htm

            Big Bang Distortions
            thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050214bigbang.htm

          • http://www.poweressence.com/ Maxwell Jennings

            Gravity, electricity, and evolution are all facts. Amongst other things, how they operate and why they even exist is where the theory part comes in.

            All cosmologists can do is turn instruments toward space, collect the data, and then interpret that data, all from a distance. In the case of those types of situations where we cannot be direct observers, the interpretation of the actual mechanisms are subjective and open to debate. The facts are that various radiations and forms are observed in space, but the actual mechanisms are just theories. The accepted model is that the radiations and other factual evidence dictates such things as black holes at the center of most galaxies (along with dark matter and dark energy), yet not all galaxies show the evidence of those theoretical black holes. That alone should indicate an underlying weakness/flaw in the accepted theory of galaxy formation, that it’s due mostly to gravity. A highly focused plasma discharge also produces the same radiations. Asteroids can cause impact craters and yet it’s been shown in laboratory experiments that highly focused plasma discharges produce exactly the same crater formations and many other structures that are observed on almost every planet, moon, asteroid and comet, while impact tests do not produce the same crater formations in every case. Water in certain soils can possibly create hematite nodules, but there is laboratory experiments that show that plasma discharges also create hematite spheres.

            Does anything I’ve presented here prove the EU theories? No. Only verifiable proof can do that, not mounds of more theory or fancy computer programs running mathematical formulas, which is the typical approach many cosmologists use to claim proof.

            • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

              So you really don’t know what a scientific theory is. :-(

            • http://myspace.com/scott888 Scott

              All the Galaxies outside our local group are moving away from us the ones further away are moving even faster. We found the background radiation that was expected to be present if an event such as the big bang happened. The shape of the universe is much like the shape of the crab nebula, which was a supernova 1000 years ago.

              “All cosmologists can do is turn instruments toward space, collect the data, and then interpret that data, all from a distance.”

              We can look at radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays. In addition there are ways to identify elements and temperature using light alone.

              “The accepted model is that the radiations and other factual evidence dictates such things as black holes at the center of most galaxies (along with dark matter and dark energy), yet not all galaxies show the evidence of those theoretical black holes.”

              Well, it just so happens that last night, I was reading about the black hole in the center of our galaxy. It doesn’t produce X-rays unless something is getting consumed for it doesn’t have an accretion disk anymore. Awhile back Sagittarius A (the black hole) suddenly flared up with X-rays for 3 hours. The conclusion is that our black hole isn’t eating matter constantly but rather consumes things in spurts. So it’s possible for those black holes to undetectable but without a super massive black hole in the center, what else could have the gravity to influence billions of stars to orbit it?

              As for dark matter, there is still work being done. I’ll hit up the chapter about dark matter in my astronomy book within a few days.

              I have a hard time seeing the big bang being rejected in favor of something else. What is this electric universe theory you speak of? The big bang explains the movement of the galaxies, the background radiation, and the shape of the universe. I strongly doubt that the red shift observation is incorrect since the red shift is consistent everywhere else otherwise.

    • http://www.doc-haynes.com doc haynes

      “using scientific theory to support religious conjecture is pure dogma and doesn’t prove anything.” ~ Maxwell Jennings

      First, scientific theory is exactly what we are asking religious people to use in order to back up their conjectures. What else are they supposed to use that would satisfy a thinking person?

      Second I think you may want to pull out a dictionary and look up the word dogma as it seems you have no idea what the word even means.

      doc

  • Tim

    This is possibly my favorite article you have written thus far. I laughed several times. It’s great. (thumbs up) :)

  • existential blues

    If you corner a believer, you will get, “the mind of God cannot be understood by mere humans”. In other words, a cop out. They believe what they believe because they believe it, and since they are so awesomely awesome, what they believe must be true.

    • Jasyn

      What I don’t get about the ‘God cannot be understood’ part is this… if God cannot be understood, then why do so many understand him (scriptures) most of the time? They can understand God until asked a question that cannot be answered with scripture, then you can see their face instantly dumb over.

      • existential blues

        They know God’s mind when it’s convenient, but God in an imponderable mystery when it’s not convenient.

  • John

    Hmm, that conclusion, aside from being false doesn’t seem obvious at all, though I’ve noticed you tend to try reason with the goal in mind so that you don’t need to be bothered by minor details like where the evidence might lead if you didn’t arbitrarily control the conditions of the questions.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      I asked a lot of questions in this blog entry John, why don’t you enlighten us and answer them. If you think that my conclusion is false, then prove me wrong. There have been many instances in my life in which I have been proven wrong and have changed my position. The existence of the Abrahamic God is one of those instances.

      I’m not “controlling” the questions, I am asking them. But sadly you have provided no answers. :-(

    • http://myspace.com/scott888 Scott

      Another alter-ego for Tomkinson?

      • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

        I don’t think so on this one. John seems seems like your run of the mill Christian to me.

  • Ed

    You’re approaching the problem as, “Finally God created the universe at this point in time.” when time exist within the universe. Any theist or atheist will tell you that.

    So if God did create the universe, God exists outside of time. There is no before, no after, no during. It is impossible for anyone (in this universe) to imagine existence without time. So as you’ve shown you cannot imagine a before or after the universe except as God sitting around twiddling his thumbs for… ever.

    • existential blues

      Or perhaps time-space has existed forever, and perhaps there are an infinite number of universes, and perhaps there’s no need for a God. The failure of imagination is on the part of the theistic creationists, who can’t conceive of the possibility that the “and then a miracle happened” step was not necessary.

      And after all the debating and discussion, there is still NOT A WHIT of evidence in favor of God or gods or anything of the sort.

      And why would a perfect being who lives outside of space and time create the universe? Does a perfect being get bored or lonely? It just doesn’t add up. It’s a pointless idea.

  • John Addy

    Thanks for this awesome post Staks….

    Regards,
    http://www.clippingdesign.com