If spirit first and something as complex as a maker can be first then even adam needs no maker.
-
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!
The "something can't come from nothing" argument
- Thread starter Big_TJ
- Start date
Thief
Rogue Theologian
What cosmologists are saying is that almost all the 0-geodesics of a classical inflating Universe have a finite length in the past. This is the BGV theorem aplogists are so in love with.
0-geodesics are lines that connect distinct points in spacetime that have a mutual distance of zero (yes, you can have distinct points having zero distance in spacetime) and can be interpreted as time lines.
Does that mean that the Universe had a beginning in time? Nope, for the following reasons:
1) Spacetime is assumed classical: as a Lorenzian manifold in which 0-geodesics can be identified. That is, it does not consider quantum mechanics which might become important as we approach zero sizes of spacetime. At the moment we do not have a theory that integrates classical spacetimes with QM
2) Not all geodesics are proven to be limited. Some test particle might still have an infinite time history without violating the theorem
3) Space is assumed to be expanding at a certain rate. The theorem can be easily bypassed by postulating a contracting universe before its expansion, as the authors admit.
But even if the abovementioned points were not-applicable, the geometry used to prove the theorem (geodesics, manifolds) supports the view of the Universe as a 4-dimensional block.
The fact that it is closed on one side and open on the other would make it look like a multi-dimensional church bell or a trumpet, once we consider it in its 4-dimensional entirety.
And 4-dimensional Lorenzian blocks do not begin to exist, by definition. The very idea that one of the components of the Universe (time) has a beginning is therefore logically absurd.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Last I heard, the universe is still expanding and gaining speed!
A simple dimensional analysis should help see the absurdity of this.
Suppose spacetime is expanding at a certain rate. But spacetime is a 4 dimensional object: three dimensions of space and one of time. Therefore its volume has the dimensions of second X meters^3.
The rate of the change is therefore the change of this volume per unit of time. Therefore the rate of change must have the units second X meters^3 / second = meter^3.
Looks like we have a rate of change measured in cubic meters. Time vanished.
Now, can you imagine a velocity or a rate of change of anything that does not contain time in it?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
I will keep all that in mind when I can wrap my head around it better lol. I usually think of time as not having a beginning however spacetime seems to be a different matter as if time got caught up somehow.
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.
The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking
Dear Readers, One would think that the smartest man in the world would realize that ONLY God told us what happened BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos. No such luck. Like most Evols he falsely presumes that the beginning of our Universe was the beginning of everything. This is because most scientists REJECT the History of the first 2 Days or Ages, which was some 9 billion years, in man's time, BEFORE the Big Bang.
What Stephen is revealing is that he thinks everything came from nothing, but God tells us that such ignorance is called willing ignorance. 2Pe 3:5 God Bless you.
In Love,
Aman
The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking
Dear Readers, One would think that the smartest man in the world would realize that ONLY God told us what happened BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos. No such luck. Like most Evols he falsely presumes that the beginning of our Universe was the beginning of everything. This is because most scientists REJECT the History of the first 2 Days or Ages, which was some 9 billion years, in man's time, BEFORE the Big Bang.
What Stephen is revealing is that he thinks everything came from nothing, but God tells us that such ignorance is called willing ignorance. 2Pe 3:5 God Bless you.
In Love,
Aman
outhouse
Atheistically
Your revealing your ignorant of what Hawking thinks.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Simple dimensional analysis or not, there a lot of cosmology folk around who go along with the evidence that the universe does indeed appear to be expanding and gaining speed.
This, from Wikipedia should start you in the right direction for researching the issue.
"The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor
has a positive second derivative,[1] so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time.[2] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating[3][4] since around redshift of z~0.5.[5] The 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics were both awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess, who in 1998 as leaders of the Supernova Cosmology Project (Perlmutter) and the High-Z Supernova Search Team (Schmidt and Riess) discovered the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant ("High-Z") supernovae."[6][7]"
source
Of course there are other thoughts on the subject, cosmologist who suggest the universe may not be expanding at all, but I don't recall any of them suggesting the reason lie within simple dimensional analysis.
source
Dear idav, Stevie thinks matter can blink in and out of existence at the quantum level. He's nuts, because his only hope for healing is in Christ, but he rejects God's Truth. God Bless you.
In Love,
Aman
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Well gee.....time does not exist.
And the observation I reported was made by some guy on a science documentary.
He spoke like he knew what he was saying.
Maybe he has been spending too much time at his telescope.
That has nothing to do with the cosmology of the universe coming from nothing.
You are describing the micro scale of matter that already exists, observation detects these virtual particles.
People dont heal just by becoming Christian, come off it.
Simple dimensional analysis or not, there a lot of cosmology folk around who go along with the evidence that the universe does indeed appear to be expanding and gaining speed.
This, from Wikipedia should start you in the right direction for researching the issue."The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factorOf course there are other thoughts on the subject, cosmologist who suggest the universe may not be expanding at all, but I don't recall any of them suggesting the reason lie within simple dimensional analysis.has a positive second derivative,[1] so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time.[2] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating[3][4] since around redshift of z~0.5.[5] The 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics were both awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess, who in 1998 as leaders of the Supernova Cosmology Project (Perlmutter) and the High-Z Supernova Search Team (Schmidt and Riess) discovered the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant ("High-Z") supernovae."[6][7]"
source
I never denied that each galaxy is receding from each other galaxy (in general) at an accelerated rate (for any observer on those galaxies). This is not the contention.
It all boils down to the definition of Universe. If we call Universe all the space and the matter it contains, leaving out time, then yes, the Universe is expanding at a certain rate. Which translates into: space is expanding at an accelerated rate.
The problem is that we cannot leave out time. Time is not external to the Universe if relativity is true. It is not a metaphysical external stage in which the whole Universe evolves. Only space and time together (Spacetime) make sense of relativity.
So, even if we observe expansion of space, we do not observe expansion of spacetime. The very concept of spacetime expansion is inherently absurd, since things like "rate", "velocity", make sense only within it.
And if we extend the definition of Universe so that it contains time as well, as we should, then we have a 4-dimensional continuum that does not expand at all, as a whole.
A possible analogy, albeit not perfect, is to imagine yourself falling into a huge funnel starting from the funnel's neck. Now, you can consider the direction of your falling as time (something you cannot stop from increasing) and the orthogonal region encompassed by the walls of the funnel as space. You can only see this orthogonal space.
What do you experience while free falling? You will peacefully float while observing that space around you is getting bigger and bigger (because the walls of the funnel get larger as you fall down). Since you do not have any other reference point, you think that space around you is increasing at a certain rate and there must be therefore a beginning of your two dimensional space.
But if we consider the whole funnel and what contains as a whole, we will see that it is nor expanding at all. It never "began". It is you who is dragged to see regions of it with bigger surrounding space extensions.
Ciao
- viole
1robin
Christian/Baptist
If time is finite then when did existence come into being? Existence is not a thing it is a property of a thing. Cosmology suggests all natural things came into existence so you have two choices.
1. Something existed prior to space time but it is not natural.
2. Nature began to exist without explanation a finite time ago.
The one option no longer available is that anything natural existed before space time or eternally.
I can grant time stretching or shrinking according to gravity but it would not make the universe or any component in it eternal because gravity depends on mass and mass began to exist a finite time ago. Black holes are dependent on matter as well. No matter how radical or theoretical your other ideas are they do not have the potentiality of making anything natural eternal. We cannot see that timeless states are part of anything. If you think we can then please list a single known timeless natural state. Physicist is irrelevant where physics breaks down. This is a science of the gaps argument. We know science does not work here but we are sure science did it anyway. However that is what makes the BGVT so bullet proof. It was designed to be true regardless of what occurred at the singularity. It is an extremely robust theory.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That is the natural conclusion of your criteria from your post. I would suggest you selectively believe it.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Not only is that untrue, and that it can't be true, it would be necessarily unknowable even if true. How do you measure a natural infinite. What ruler, transit, or tape measure can verify infinity? Eternity, nothing, and infinity are words that are too often floated around where they do not belong. If there was a place that actually contained infinite gravity then why is not everything sucked up into it. It would only require a finite amount of gravity to suck everything to it's center and you claim it has infinitely more than that yet the universe is not all in the space of an electron. Same with the claims about the singularity having infinite heat. Then why is the universe not infinitely hot instead of only a few degrees above absolute zero. If anything you read applies infinity to anything natural start being highly specious. I have a math degree and my boss has a PhD specialty in Boolean differential calculus and we had a long discussion the other day about how infinity is almost always used as a unapproachable barrier in physics and math, the rest of the time it mangles the math up so bad you get nonsense out of it. In science reality infinity is that place nothing natural can get to and is treated as such in applications.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
It is no more a concrete object than length or weight. There are no lengths floating around in space, nor weights. They are descriptions of the essence or quality of a thing. If you say something exists you have only said it has being in a particular moment or span as opposed to non-being. I cannot imagine a less meaningful discussing than what being means. No matter what description you give it it will never get something from nothing so why bother in this context?
And yet, it's not something I believe.