Options for origin of universe

[Aoi Magi]

The universe came into existence because it was being observed by it's inhabitants...

[Minimalist]

The universe evolved from snot sneezed out of the nose of an enormous mutant star goat.

Compared to the story that the angry desert God lovers tell that really isn't all that outlandish.

[downbeatplumb]

The universe evolved from snot sneezed out of the nose of an enormous mutant star goat.

At last a hypothesis I can get behind!
Or are you just kidding?

[robvalue]

There's two terms I object to here, so I'll substitute my own.

Universe: I will use reality. If we're considering things not part of our universe, we've already contradicted ourself.

God: I will use creator. God is used as a placeholder for an intelligent creator, and then abused to sneak in a lot of properties about the creator without justification.

As Alex said It seems to me that we barely understand our reality, and our understanding of space and time is probably laughably wrong. I am hugely hampered by the limits of my imagination and understanding, so I'd never presume any list I could come up with is exhaustive or even sensible.

However, in the interests of discussion, here are my thoughts:

I can only split the possibilities into two with any degree of satisfaction.

1. Our reality always existed in some sense, in some form
2. Our reality has not always existed

For both of these, there are an infinity of sub-possibilities, and no way yet to narrow them down except attempting to dispense with some using Occam's Razor. For set 1, this could include our perceived reality being a subset of another reality, or coming about by the fragmentation of a reality. Fragmentation seems fairly plausible, as far as any of this goes. It could also include our reality being "fashioned" to be self-contained, this is the most sensible creator hypothesis for me (although this could come about by unintelligent processes too.)

Very roughly, starting with the most likely, the explanations I can think of for set 2 are:

1. Our reality is a manifestation of some sort of process in another reality. This could be similar to a computer program, or something as simple as an emergent property.

2. Our reality represents part of a multiverse where all possibilities are played out.

3-100,000. Make up anything you like.

100,001: A creator in a parent reality somehow conjured our reality into a literal existence, not drawing on any resources to do so.

100,002: As above, but the creator continues to show some interest in our reality.

100,003: As above, but the creator interacts with our reality, in ways which seem indistinguishable from nature.

100,004: As above, but the creator communicated with humans at some point and decided to leave a primitive contradictory textual account as "evidence".

[Alex K]

rob,

While I don't think it is laughably wrong at macroscopic and intermediate cosmological scales, we have no clue what the structure of spacetime is near planck scales. It probably has little resemblance with three + one smooth linear directions as apologists envision them in their primitive arguments.

[robvalue]

Cool I'm glad you have more confidence than me, and I'll trust your judgement over mine! Sorry for misrepresenting you.

I was thinking more in terms of us being stuck right in the middle of what we are supposedly observing, so we can't view it externally/objectively. We are instead creating our own realities inside our head... our consciousness appears to already be a possible example of 2:1 on my list.

I could have been a philosopher and a scientist you know, I just lack the beard and the brain. So I play video games and kill stuff instead.

[Lucanus]

I could have been a philosopher and a scientist you know, I just lack the beard and the brain. So I play video games and kill stuff instead.

Story of my life

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Fools.  It has been firmly established, beyond all rational contradiction, by D.N. Adams (BA, MA, PhD, LsD) that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.  Repent, or the Great White Handkerchief will fix you proper.

Boru

[Longhorn]

How about #4: I have no idea so I won't make up an answer out of my ass? ._.

We don't know. Period. Anything more than that is speculation.

[Alex K]

Cool I'm glad you have more confidence than me, and I'll trust your judgement over mine! Sorry for misrepresenting you.

I was thinking more in terms of us being stuck right in the middle of what we are supposedly observing, so we can't view it externally/objectively. We are instead creating our own realities inside our head... our consciousness appears to already be a possible example of 2:1 on my list.

I could have been a philosopher and a scientist you know, I just lack the beard and the brain. So I play video games and kill stuff instead.

You are very right ™, more so than my answer admits - even if we have a decent understanding of space and time on intermediate scales as seen from within, this description can be arbitrarily useless if an external description concerning the origin of space itself is needed - Our theories, which are built upon observations and experiments carried out within our universe, might not capture the aspects at all which are relevant for this question, if it even is a sensible one. For example, the combination of words "the creation of time", is quite meaningless by default, so one has to be careful not to write an invalid question.