Thread: Who designed the Universe?

How were the fudamentals of science set ie, the speed of light, strength of the force of gravity and electrical attraction, the number of fundamental particles adn their properties.

It seems to me they could have been set to different value to which thet are now, so why is these certain values were used and not one of another infinite set of possible values?

We will likely never know this. We can do one of two things: accept this as a necessary truth of the universe, such as 2+2 = 4.

Or invent some story that has a creator who had the intelligence, inclination, and physical capability to "set" all these rules in place prior to their existence.

But this does not bring us any closer to answering the question, it in fact pushes us farther away from answering the question as we then need to explain who created the creator, and who gave him the immense capabilities to actually do all of this, and then who created the creator's creator and what happened to him now? Where does he live? how was he able to make such fundamental changes?

It brings up a million questions that are unanswerable and I think most people would rather settle for one or two simple necessary truths than several million overly complex interdependent truths that could just as easily be ditched and explained just as well by a different but similar "idea".

Originally Posted by Monkey.Man

We will likely never know this. We can do one of two things: accept this as a necessary truth of the universe, such as 2+2 = 4.

Or invent some story that has a creator who had the intelligence, inclination, and physical capability to "set" all these rules in place prior to their existence.

But this does not bring us any closer to answering the question, it in fact pushes us farther away from answering the question as we then need to explain who created the creator, and who gave him the immense capabilities to actually do all of this, and then who created the creator's creator and what happened to him now? Where does he live? how was he able to make such fundamental changes?

It brings up a million questions that are unanswerable and I think most people would rather settle for one or two simple necessary truths than several million overly complex interdependent truths that could just as easily be ditched and explained just as well by a different but similar "idea".

I would not say it is the same a 2+2 is 4, atually I believe 2+2 is defined as 4...
Not really the same thing.

Why do you need to invent a creator?

Can't you give scientific reason?

It seems odd sciene is lost for answers on such basic points yet can get all high an mighy about knowing it all.

It funny how scientists get all stroppy when you question them on such matters.

I don't really see how you can accept one or two basic 'truths' when you ignore the fundamantals of science, thats a real cop-out.

It seems science has a lot to learn about the universe and it origins, despite it's shallow pretence.

Originally Posted by esbo

How were the fudamentals of sience set ie, the speed of light, strentth of the force of gravity and electrical attraction, the number of fundamental particles adn their properties.

It seems to me thee ould have been set to different value to which thet are now, so why is these certain values were used and not one of another infinite set of posible values?

Why did you ask the question you did--with it's explicit assumption that "someone" designed the universe? The same with the followon remark about certain uses being "used," again an explicit reference to someone or something taking an action.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by esbo

How were the fudamentals of sience set ie, the speed of light, strentth of the force of gravity and electrical attraction, the number of fundamental particles adn their properties.

It seems to me thee ould have been set to different value to which thet are now, so why is these certain values were used and not one of another infinite set of posible values?

Why did you ask the question you did--with it's explicit assumption that "someone" designed the universe? The same with the followon remark about certain uses being "used," again an explicit reference to someone or something taking an action.

I asked the question to see if someone coud provide an answer.
Same goes for most questions I ask, usually.

Why did you ask your question rather than answer the question as one might reasonably expect?

The fundamentals of science were not "set" - that implies a 'creator' which is a ludicrous invention of man.

The fundamentals of science just happened the way that they are. That's all there is to it. In other universes, if they exist, there would be other fundamentals which seem as ironclad and perfect to them as ours seems to us.

You're not asking your question to see if anyone knows the answer. You're asking your question to start yet another useless 'make scientists unsure' attempt.

Originally Posted by esbo

I asked the question to see if someone coud provide an answer.
Same goes for most questions I ask, usually.

Why did you ask your question rather than answer the question as one might reasonably expect?

Why answer a question built around a logical fallacy that there's a "who" and someone who choice to "use." You are begging the question about whether god exist--such tactics are normally outside scientific discussions.