I am an eternalist, so no, I don't think the Universe had a beginning. I don't even think it makes sense to talk of a beginning of the Universe.
Ciao
- viole
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Universe from Nothing?
- Thread starter Tomorrows_Child
- Start date
I am an eternalist, so no, I don't think the Universe had a beginning. I don't even think it makes sense to talk of a beginning of the Universe.
Ciao
- viole
Shad
Veteran Member
And if you read his work you would realize "nothing" is still something in his own work. He has clarified this repeatedly in his books, his work and debates. Do note that he keeps references QM which makes "nothing" something. He redefines nothing in the end.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
An archive? Not that I've ever seen made mention of.
So what method might Intelligent Design use to achieve this regeneration? To the best of our knowledge, due to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe no such reversal is possible. The best method I can think of would be equivalent to a snap of the fingers.
Unification
Well-Known Member
The universe has no beginning if the law that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed is absolute.
To say that the universe is 14 billion or 50 billion years old or any age would be misleading.
Energy would have to be eternal and exist well beyond 14 or 50 billion years.
Perhaps "time" is misleading.
Then we start to have questions such as, "well how can energy just always be there?"
If "this period/age" of the universe began 14 billion years ago, it would be just be the end of "another period/age" of universe.
"What caused everything to be set in motion and what caused everything to condense in a rinse, recycle, repeat fashion?"
Formless light/waves/energy to form/particles/matter back to formless light/waves/energy back to form/particles/matter and on and on.
Unless there is a natural and organic subtle phenomena that can create and destroy energy.
My conclusion, this stuff will just keep the mind racing in circles and punching the wind. Embrace the present, the more past and future that the mind rids of... The happier. Ignorance to many things is bliss.
It's fun to reason and think about if one can control their mind without allowing themselves to become fried and depressed.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I think it makes sense to talk about the beginning of our universe.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Do the ocean tides need an intelligence to make them happen?
Not necessarily, why? Because of the Big Bang, space expansion and all that?
Ciao
- viole
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yes, because of that. Modern cosmology seems to be moving in the direction of our big bang being one of many or one in a series, or the product of a larger reality, many possibilities. In any case I suspect there has always been something, so in that sense I tend towards eternalism.
Eternalism is not in contradiction with the Big Bang, I think. And it works also if you have only one Universe (ours) with one Big Bang and one only.
All discussions circling around the (false) dichotomy between a Universe coming from nothing, or being generated by an infinitely regressing physical causal chain, are based on a philosophy of time that is very probably wrong.
For, it is possible to make a case for an eternal and immutable Universe that accommodates what we know today about cosmology. It is actually what relativity suggests, if we take it at face value.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
As a pure and authentic rationalist/skeptic, I can recognize and accept that I have no idea where the universe came from - I can also recognize and accept that no one else does either. Additionally, I see no reason to think that we, as a species, are even capable of understanding the true nature of things, so I take other people's speculation for what it is - wishful thinking and projection borne of ignorance and limited scope.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
We currently know very little about "before" the big bang, that's for sure. It's a large gap for God.
I don't think we need to worry about that.
The eternalistic interpretation of the Universe (aka block Universe) utterly destroys any argument based on the questions about origin, by removing the very concept of origin from the equation.
And it achieves that by being perfectly compatible with what we know about cosmology and the nature of space and time, today. I would even say that it is the only known viable alternative that does not contradict the theory of relativity.
At "present", there are no convincing rebuttals to this interpretation.
Ciao
- viole
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I thought the block universe idea is just that the past and present are real? I'm not clear how eternalism derives from that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
Well, they are basically the same thing.
"It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-timeas an unchanging four-dimensional "block",[2] as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time." (From the same link about eternalism).
The idea is that the Universe is seen as an immutable 4-dimensional block (a pseudo-Riemannian surface, or manifold, to be more precise) on which all space temporal events exist, eternally. Including the Big Bang, which is not any special than any other event on it. For this reason, this surface is also eternal and does not require a cause.
Ciao
- viole
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
But doesn't the block "start" with the big bang - I mean the block doesn't extend "backwards" eternally.
There is no start. independently from the Big Bang. That is the point.
To see that, we need a little analogy, which, despite being a bit superficial, it is useful to convey the notion.
Consider the surface of the earth (a sphere, more or less). Let’s ideally replace one dimension of space (the north-south direction) with a dimension of time. In this model, if you (one dimensional being extended in the east-west spacial direction, in this model) seat watching TV anywhere on the surface, you will feel like being dragged in time towards the south pole as the clock ticks.
As time passes, the east-west space circumference seems to increase until it reaches its maximum extension at the equator. All objects around you seem to move farther away from you (perceived as universe expansion). Then it seems to shrink again as time passes and you are approaching the south pole.
This is a very simplified model of a 2-dimensional closed universe that gives observers in it the illusion to start with zero spacial extension and to end the same way. Something like a Big Bang and a Big Crunch.
But the whole Universe as a whole is an immutable sphere with a 2-dimensional spacetime that does not begin, nor ends, nor moves at all. All events that punctuate it, including you watching TV at the space and time location that corresponds to, say, 53-Madison New York, are also eternal and all existing at once. The event of your birth is still there (farther north from NY) and the event of your death is also already there (much farther south from NY
).So, this 2-dimensional continuum does not need to come from somewhere. Despite having observes on its surface that think that Universe started at the north pole (Big Bang )and will end at the south pole (Big Crunch), there is no start and no end for the existence of the whole sphere.
A good introduction is here -> http://archive.is/0pC8J
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I agree absolutely...imho...the talk of a beginning of the universe is due to the anthropomorphic factor of assuming because humans are finite....the universe in which the find themselves has to be also.. In the process of imagining the universe had a beginning....they than had to imagine an even more bizarre state of 'nothing' from which the universe had this beginning... haha...
Or due to the anthropomorphic factor they had to imagine the universe was created by a god because they thought it was logical that since humans created things big things like the universe had to have been created by big powerful humans (gods).
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I am with you on that too...the part about God creating it from nothing that is....but not necessarily the implication that all human considerations of higher beings are purely anthropomorphic...it would be difficult for me to imagine that humanity on this planet is the apex of evolutionary unfoldment in the universe..
Excellent point! You just annihilated strong atheism! Strong atheists have no reason to claim that beings called "gods" capable of creating universes don't exist for all we know they could have evolved like everything else...