if there's no creator wouldn't that mean that the universe is either infinitely old or popped itself into existence?

29 Answers

  • 4 weeks ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes, that's reasonable.

  • 4 weeks ago

    "Gasses do not naturally compress under any circumstances." No wonder you are anonymous when you come up with nonsense like this. Obviously homeschooled with none of that Satanic stuff called science. 

  • 4 weeks ago

    The phrase "popped itself into existence", is too vague for me to answer the question.

  • david
    Lv 5
    4 weeks ago

    Now your starting to ask some good questions. Here's a companion piece. If there's a creator, where did (s)he/it come from. Did it "pop itself into existence", or is it infinitely old. Assuming the same standards of acceptable explanation exist. 

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 weeks ago

    When considering the origins of reality, hypothesizing a Creator God doesn't help, because where did the Creator God come from.

    The usual answer is that the Creator God is "sacred" and therefore the origins of the Creator God are not to be contemplated, lest we infringe on sacred ideas beyond our ken.  But really, that's just resorting to supernatural fear.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Here's what they're not telling you.

    Stars are big balls of gas on fire. Gasses do not naturally compress under any circumstances. They disperse and dissipate. Gasses do NOT collapse upon themselves to form a ball (or spontaneously ignite). There is also no 'container' to hold the gasses together.

    The scientific model that says 'gravity brought the gasses together' does not work: gravity is much too weak a force to cause gasses to form into a ball. The scientific community grudgingly admits this. All models they have come up with so far for star formation fail; because every one of their models rely on a previous star existing at some point.

    So if we don’t know how even one star formed (or even what fire itself is) how can we make plausible arguments for creation without a creator? For most, creation implies a CreatOR; design a Designer. If I see a beautiful painting, it is logical to believe that an artist exists. I find it absolutely unreasonable to believe that is just "happened". Or if I find a watch, it's logical to believe that there's a watchmaker. It's irrational, to think it was the result of chance and time.

    The computers we're using means someone exists with intelligent powers of creation and design to build them. It makes no sense at all to believe that your computer came into being as a result of an explosion in a metal factory one day.

    You see my point? God is not for wishful thinkers.

    God makes perfect sense to those who apply reason.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    This will always be a research opportunity but scientists have figured out how the universe began. They don't use the "popped". There is a scientific explanation. This is not a good hiding place for the god of the gaps. Look it up.

  • Paul
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Right. Either of which is scientifically Impossible.

  • Git
    Lv 5
    1 month ago

    The universe is both infinitely old yet relatively new. It renewEd itself over and over again from the same materials that existed without beginning.

    If you want to call this process god, then so be it. But it would be a mindless god that is without consciousness or intent; a process that merely follows one process after another.

  • 1 month ago

    You'll never find out for sure.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.