The Universe Always Was Existing

[Pegg]

You are surprised because you don't like the idea...your mind is made up regardless of what current theories say or what the ones 10, 15, 25 years from now will say.

There are several theories with an eternal universe which don't have small or major problems or issues. You want to pretend they are poor or non-existant so the only thing left standing is a scripture friendly theory or model.

Is this not true?

Plenty of intelligent or even brilliant people believe an eternal universe is the most likely case...

an eternal universe was debunked by science 50 years ago.

And that scientific evidence has ruffled feathers because they dont like the implication. So they have gone back to the original eternal theories which were believed by the ancients thousands of years ago.

unbelievable.

 

[idav]

an eternal universe was debunked by science 50 years ago.

And that scientific evidence has ruffled feathers because they dont like the implication. So they have gone back to the original eternal theories which were believed by the ancients thousands of years ago.

unbelievable.

It wasnt debunked, you cant debunk an eternal universe with the big bang. The maths get too hard when it gets to the quantum level when physics starts breaking down and at that state seemingly anything is possible.

 

[ArtieE]

This would cause an infinite regression which sidesteps the issue. With the universe coming from a black hole, I suppose this black hole came from another universe?

Why do you think infinite regression is a problem?
Philosophy, et cetera: Unchanging Time and the Infinite Past
Is Infinite Regress a Problem? | Intrinsically Knotted
Could an Infinite Series of Past Events

We all know there's an infinite number of numbers, that if you start with zero and count backwards -1, -2, -3, -4, -5 etc you will never reach a "highest number". Most people understand that no god is needed to provide a starting number, say -one umptillion because obviously when there's an infinite amount of numbers also -one umptillion and one exists. Suppose you start with zero and count -1 minute, -2 minutes, -3 minutes, -4 minutes, -5 minutes then for some reason some people think that you can reach a highest number, say one umptillion and a god must have created a -one umptillionth minute and that there's no such thing as -one umptillion and one minutes. Why?

 

[shawn001]

this is off topic, but i was wondering if cosmologists had any idea, or way to determine, where the big bang originated from. I thought that would be interesting to know the projection point of where the light came from.

Its actually on topic and important to the topic.

"Please keep in mind the following important points to avoid misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from an origin point.?

WMAP Big Bang Concepts

 

[shawn001]

If the Big Crunch is ruled out, then how can obs only 'point' to a Big Crunch? Neither has been thrown in the bin.

You wrote this:-

.....and later in the same post you wrote this:-




Yes

Sorry I counldn't post with the quotes, the function isn't working for some reason.

We have a picture of the "light" left over from the bang.

What I was saying is the Big bang theory and the beginning of what started the bang are kind of like, using an analogy, abiogenisis and evolution.


At the moment , not sure what obs stands for, please elaborate.

The Hubble website

HubbleSite - Dark Energy - Fate of the Universe

Many have basically ruled out the big crunch, but lets just say its the least likely at this point in our observation's and understanding of density, critical density and dark energy and the observation of the universe accelerating even faster its not looking good for a big crunch.

 

[shawn001]

How about this theory? Was our universe born inside a black hole in another universe?

This theory and similar ones still have quite a bit of potential.

 

[shawn001]

A static universe was debunked a long time ago.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

an eternal universe was debunked by science 50 years ago.

And that scientific evidence has ruffled feathers because they dont like the implication. So they have gone back to the original eternal theories which were believed by the ancients thousands of years ago.

unbelievable.

Quite literally the universe has existed for all time. And it shall continue to exist "forever".


The concept of eternal looses meaning when we realize that time is simply a measurement of the universe and not something that the universe lays upon.

For example we often talk about the "beginning" of the universe when such a thing makes no sense by our understanding of the universe. And even worse is this concept of "before" the universe.

 

[nazz]

Why do you think infinite regression is a problem?
Philosophy, et cetera: Unchanging Time and the Infinite Past
Is Infinite Regress a Problem? | Intrinsically Knotted
Could an Infinite Series of Past Events

We all know there's an infinite number of numbers, that if you start with zero ...

...

 

[idav]

...

If the earth stands on a tortoise what does the tortoise stand on.

"Turtles all the way down".

 

[shawn001]

Quite literally the universe has existed for all time. And it shall continue to exist "forever".


The concept of eternal looses meaning when we realize that time is simply a measurement of the universe and not something that the universe lays upon.

For example we often talk about the "beginning" of the universe when such a thing makes no sense by our understanding of the universe. And even worse is this concept of "before" the universe.

When scientist talk about the "beginning" though its about how the universe looked 13.7 billion years ago and then all the way down to Planck time and how its changed since then. Like running a movie backwards. But we don't understand yet how the bang started of course or how it will ultimately change.

 

[shawn001]

If the earth stands on a tortoise what does the tortoise stand on.

"Turtles all the way down".

If the earth stands on a tortoise what does the tortoise stand on.

If there is no space?

 

[ArtieE]

...

Yes, did you get the point of the post? That if you start counting at zero this minute and count back -1 minute, -2 minutes and so forth there's no reason to claim that at some point you would reach a -something "first" minute?

 

[idav]

If the earth stands on a tortoise what does the tortoise stand on.

If there is no space?

Indeed I see an issue with positing an answer that poses the same problem as the original question. That is the main issue with infinite regress, it doesn't solve the problem, just shifts the problem back another step, and then another, and then....

 

[ArtieE]

Indeed I see an issue with positing an answer that poses the same problem as the original question. That is the main issue with infinite regress, it doesn't solve the problem, just shifts the problem back another step, and then another, and then....

No it doesn't. Please read the links I supplied in post 43 again and then stop repeating this.

 

[idav]

No it doesn't. Please read the links I supplied in post 43 again and then stop repeating this.

I read them way back when you posted it. I simply don't agree. Sure it may be logical, "nothing contradictory about it", that much I agree with, but it doesn't take the absurdity out. However I think we are pointing to different things. I have no issue with an "infinite" universe, the problem is when someone uses a solution that just causes an absurd version of infinite regress. Like if god is needed to create the universe then a god was needed to create that god into infinite is absurd compared to saying existence just always existed.

 

[idav]

So the tortoise holding up the earth seems logical enough, but its wrong, it wouldn't stop people from believing before they had knowledge of science. So nobody see anything wrong with positing something causing infinite regress, when what was posited could be wrong anyway. Turtles all the way down might sound logical but it doesn't solve the issue of what holds the earth up. Well if a turtle holds the earth up what holds the turtle up etc.

 

[nazz]

Yes, did you get the point of the post? That if you start counting at zero this minute and count back -1 minute, -2 minutes and so forth there's no reason to claim that at some point you would reach a -something "first" minute?

Oh, I got your point just fine. You just didn't get mine. You don't realize it but your very statement above proves the impossibility of an infinite regression of time.

 

[ArtieE]

the problem is when someone uses a solution that just causes an absurd version of infinite regress. Like if god is needed to create the universe then a god was needed to create that god into infinite is absurd compared to saying existence just always existed.

True. Existence must always have existed of course because if not nothing would have existed in the first place to "create" existence.

 

[ArtieE]

Oh, I got your point just fine. You just didn't get mine. You don't realize it but your very statement above proves the impossibility of an infinite regression of time.

Please elaborate.