Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[shunyadragon]

Your statement is a contradiction brother. Because when a being is outside of time, there is no concept of a point in time for the being. That point in time is only relevant to those time is of effect. Maybe you should read this post below.

God, Free-will, and the knowledge of God - Is his knowledge causation?

I wished to address this point because it's a very common objection to God's knowledge and Free-will. It's predominantly an Atheistic argument but some theists also find it confusing. The problem with this is we see time as linear. We don't really know what's gonna happen tomorrow. We don't...

www.religiousforums.com

I believe God is outside the time space reference of our universe, Thar does not mean God is outside or inside our physical existence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, because you do not identify the reality represented by the concept 'God' with the universe as a pantheist does.

So you do not see the universe as having life or intelligence?

No, Donald is not God, like the cells in your body are not you. All that exists is an indivisible whole, God.

Thank you for explaining your view on these points. My cells are not God but they are one of the reasons that I may get sick and die or be healthy until I die. I don't see spirit persons, but I believe they exist, and they obviously think. I cannot account for their makeup or composition. But I believe they exist. Everything the God I believe in made was good. But He allows free will and His intelligent creation to decide if they will love and obey Him. Since He made all things, He can also remove what He wants to.

 

[YellowFeather]

People created God, not God created humans.

People have also created religions and wrote scriptures.

Humans are superstitious lots…they attempt to describe some things in the world that they cannot comprehend & explain, so they make up a god or 2, with special powers…sort of like today’s cartoonist creating superhero or super-villain with otherworldly powers.

A creation is something you can see and touch. Because you can not see God or touch God, is because God is a spirit. the world was created from the invisible Spirit that took 100s of years to create. It only took a piece of fragment that was floating in space to start the creation. Just like your table, it was once invisible, then the mind started creating it and it started with just one piece of material and then became a table that you now have. Understanding the Bible takes full patience and will to learn.

 

[Tomef]

Why didn't the universe always exist? Because since God is supposed to be outside of time and is supposed to have always existed, then how could God have used a point in time to start creation? Any thoughts on this?

Why hasn’t the universe always existed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why hasn’t the universe always existed.

Obviously it has, but people's beliefs are not always logical, these beliefs vary from some 'god' creating it from nothing at the beginning of time, to a belief that nothing created it from nothing in a Big Bang at the beginning of time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Obviously it has, but people's beliefs are not always logical, these beliefs vary from some 'god' creating it from nothing at the beginning of time, to a belief that nothing created it from nothing in a Big Bang at the beginning of time.

To complete the picture, this reality of an eternal, infinite, all that exists, has been represented in different cultures since time immemorial, as a word that means, more or less, that which in the English language the word 'God' or 'Creator', stands for.

Now since this eternal, infinite, 'all that exists' God is infinitely eternally so, there is nothing that can ever be added to it, for where could it come from, and nothing that can ever be taken away, for where could it be put? So any and all creation that man imagines having ever occurred, can only have had happened using pre-existing material, and thus this creation could not be eternal, and by virtue of the principle of reciprocity, must also be able to go out of existence and thus 'die'.

So it follows that wrt Hebrew bible, the Genesis chapters are about the creation of our local star system and Earth, and thus those people who have ever imagined it to apply to 'All that Exists', are coming from 'blind' belief, because logically, nothing can come from nothing, not God, not the Universe, not an atom, just nothing.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, you apparently are not aware of God according to panetheism, just look out of your eyes and see reality, that is God.

If I see the Sun, then I see the a star; what I don't do, is that I don't equate the Sun with Ra or Helios or Surya, and so on.

So why would I equate the Universe with God?

And Panetheism or not, it is still invented by humans, regardless if you equate the Universe with God or with some other imaginary dudes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If I see the Sun, then I see the a star; what I don't do, is that I don't equate the Sun with Ra or Helios or Surya, and so on.

So why would I equate the Universe with God?

And Panetheism or not, it is still invented by humans, regardless if you equate the Universe with God or with some other imaginary dudes.

Sun, stars, people, flowers, oceans, etc., etc., are merely created things, they are not the 'all that exists' reality represented by names such as God, Brahman, etc. but they are aspects of.

If you want to call the 'all that exists' reality, the universe, and not 'Brahman'/'God', that's fine, but do understand that is the understanding of pantheism that the concept of 'God' is just another name for the living reality of all that exists, ie., the living universe.

And all human religious culture, all human science, all human language, is invented by humans, regardless of you equating the universe with something that came from nothing, and is not alive or conscious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sun, stars, people, flowers, oceans, etc., etc., are merely created things, they are not the 'all that exists' reality represented by names such as God, Brahman, etc. but they are aspects of.

If you want to call the 'all that exists' reality, the universe, and not 'Brahman'/'God', that's fine, but do understand that is the understanding of pantheism that the concept of 'God' is just another name for the living reality of all that exists, ie., the living universe.

And all human religious culture, all human science, all human language, is invented by humans, regardless of you equating the universe with something that came from nothing, and is not alive or conscious.

How would you prove that they were "created"? We can be very sure that the universe had a beginning (though that does not mean that it has not always existed) but I do not know of any evidence that the universe was created at all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How would you prove that they were "created"? We can be very sure that the universe had a beginning (though that does not mean that it has not always existed) but I do not know of any evidence that the universe was created at all.

Well take a star for example, there is evidence of new stars being created/formed now, and we have evidence of stars dying, going super nova. This is the nature of universal existence. There is no duality involved in creation, no creator on the one hand, and creation on the other!

With regards to universal beginning, BB from nothing theory is nonsense, there can never be something from nothing creation, despite any and all appeals to authority. But if you imagine this known 'universe' formed from some preexistent unformed energy/material, it just confirms that the real universe is eternal and infinite, which is a given.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well take a star for example, there is evidence of new stars being created/formed now, and we have evidence of stars dying, going super nova. This is the nature of universal existence. There is no duality involved in creation, no creator on the one hand, and creation on the other!

Formed yes, created no. Created is a word that implies agency, in other words that there is some being of some sort behind it. It is a loaded term that one should not use. If you want to claim that there is a creation you have taken on a burden of proof. You do not get to use circular reasoning to defend it.

With regards to universal beginning, BB from nothing theory is nonsense, there can never be something from nothing creation, despite any and all appeals to authority. But if you imagine this known 'universe' formed from some preexistent unformed energy/material, it just confirms that the real universe is eternal and infinite, which is a given.

Sorry, but the "something from nothing" claim is one that creationists use. Physicists do not make that claim. That the universe could have formed from no energy has both observations that support it and the math of General Relativity. And yes, the universe could be both eternal and have a beginning. Are you familiar with number lines at all?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Formed yes, created no. Created is a word that implies agency, in other words that there is some being of some sort behind it. It is a loaded term that one should not use. If you want to claim that there is a creation you have taken on a burden of proof. You do not get to use circular reasoning to defend it.

Sorry, but the "something from nothing" claim is one that creationists use. Physicists do not make that claim. That the universe could have formed from no energy has both observations that support it and the math of General Relativity. And yes, the universe could be both eternal and have a beginning. Are you familiar with number lines at all?

Created does not necessarily imply a separate agency, as in "stars are created out of the dust of exploded stars", nor does form necessarily not imply an agency, as in "the child formed a castle out of sand".

The fact to understand is that nothing can come from nothing, the sum total of universal mass in existence has always existed. If there are any physicists who deny this, then the onus is on them to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, before any reasonably intelligent person would accept it.

 

[gnostic]

A creation is something you can see and touch. Because you can not see God or touch God, is because God is a spirit. the world was created from the invisible Spirit that took 100s of years to create.

And that’s a classic case of superstitions, attributing whatever existence of nature, to some invisible entities.

it is also case of belief based on faith - you believe in God, because of your faith - so you would always that your faith (and belief) to be true, no matter there are no evidence to support such faith-based belief. That is also considered Confirmation Bias.

Such attributions are assumptions that would also fall under a number of logical fallacies - Special Pleading, Circular Reasoning, Argument From Ignorance, False Equivalence, etc. Those are the only fallacies that come to mind right now, as I only have less than an hour of sleep, so my brain is barely functioning at high level.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Created does not necessarily imply a separate agency, as in "stars are created out of the dust of exploded stars", nor does form necessarily not imply an agency, as in "the child formed a castle out of sand".

I disagree. And you do not seem to understand. Your example does not help you at all. One can always use a term like "formed" since that applies whether there is agency or not. It is the general cases. But "created" does imply agency. One needs a term that is neutral.

The fact to understand is that nothing can come from nothing, the sum total of universal mass in existence has always existed. If there are any physicists who deny this, then the onus is on them to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, before any reasonably intelligent person would accept it.

No, you are quite wrong in that claim. Matter can be converted to energy and back so matter can clearly arise from non-matter. That was shown by Einstein's Special Relativity. So the big question is how much energy is there in the universe. Some physicists will point out that energy is just bookkeeping and scientists have measured the total energy of the universe. Would you like to guess what that value is?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I disagree. And you do not seem to understand. Your example does not help you at all. One can always use a term like "formed" since that applies whether there is agency or not. It is the general cases. But "created" does imply agency. One needs a term that is neutral.

No, you are quite wrong in that claim. Matter can be converted to energy and back so matter can clearly arise from non-matter. That was shown by Einstein's Special Relativity. So the big question is how much energy is there in the universe. Some physicists will point out that energy is just bookkeeping and scientists have measured the total energy of the universe. Would you like to guess what that value is?

Ok, we can agree to disagree wrt whether 'created' and 'formed' can be interchanged in the context of the formation of a new star, but for the sake of moving on, we can stick with 'formed' for now.

Please explain to us why you equate 'nothing' with energy? I said mass cannot come into existence from nothing, and you say I am wrong, matter can come from non-matter/energy. Energy is not nothing!

 

[gnostic]

Created does not necessarily imply a separate agency, as in "stars are created out of the dust of exploded stars", nor does form necessarily not imply an agency, as in "the child formed a castle out of sand".

Young stars mainly formed from the abundance of hydrogen, with less of other elements, eg helium, carbon, nitrogen & oxygen, but also debris of heavier particles, such as dust.

With the presence of these elements already existing molecular clouds of these elements (but mainly hydrogen), then a supernova triggering Stellar Nucleosynthesis of any star’s core, these stars are not made from nothing.

Nothing required nonexistence of any substances whatsoever, not clouds of (mostly) hydrogen (in either of gaseous or plasma state, but more likely in plasma state).

Do you understand the reason why I have continuously singled out hydrogen?

It is because that what most new stars are mainly of, in the different layers of a star, with the core being the most dense and hottest region or zone of a star, where thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei to form into heavier elements, like helium in our sun core, but stars much more massive than our Sun, they can fused into carbon, nitrogen or oxygen. Nuclear fusion occurred naturally within any star’s core. A star and its Nucleosynthesis process cannot happen without hydrogen, and the core being dense enough & hot enough, and hot as in above the 5000 Kelvin for hydrogen fusion to helium Nucleosynthesis, but much more hotter to fuse those other elements, heavier than helium.

When stars explode, it is mainly due running out of hydrogen to fuse, and a massive star is not mass enough, nor hot enough, to trigger fusions of helium or heavier elements (eg carbon), so this star continue to collapse due to its own gravity, until boom - a supernova explosion occurs.

Such supernovae are responsible for fusing elements that are even heavier than oxygen, all the elements of the periodic table, up to iron. The spreading of these other elements are responsible for formations of asteroids, moons and planets.

The formations of new star systems (stars with new planets, moons and asteroids), are never made from nothing.

More importantly, none of these galaxies, stars, planets and even life on these planets, don’t require external agencies, especially supernatural entities, like Spirit or God, fairies, etc. Hence, no Creator or Designer, not even your transcendent consciousness or universal principle that you called Brahman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Young stars mainly formed from the abundance of hydrogen, with less of other elements, eg helium, carbon, nitrogen & oxygen, but also debris of heavier particles, such as dust.

With the presence of these elements already existing molecular clouds of these elements (but mainly hydrogen), then a supernova triggering Stellar Nucleosynthesis of any star’s core, these stars are not made from nothing.

Nothing required existence of any substances whatsoever, not clouds of (mostly) hydrogen (in either of gaseous or plasma state, but more likely in plasma state).

Do you understand the reason why I have continuously singled out hydrogen?

It is because that what most new stars are mainly of, in the different layers of a star, with the core being the most dense and hottest region or zone of a star, where thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei to form into heavier elements, like helium in our sun core, but stars much more massive than our Sun, they can fused into carbon, nitrogen or oxygen.

When stars explode, it is mainly due running out of hydrogen to fuse, and a massive star is not mass enough, nor hot enough, to trigger fusions of helium or heavier elements (eg carbon), so this star continue to collapse due to its own gravity, until boom - a supernova explosion occurs.

Such supernovae are responsible for fusing elements that are even heavier than oxygen, all the elements of the periodic table, up to iron. The spreading of these other elements are responsible for formations of asteroids, moons and planets.

The formations of new star systems (stars with new planets, moons and asteroids), are never made from nothing.

More importantly, none of these galaxies, stars, planets and even life on these planets, don’t require external agencies, especially supernatural entities, like Spirit or God, fairies, etc. Hence, no Creator or Designer, not even your transcendent consciousness or universal principle that you called Brahman.

Precisely, the creative and destructive processes of the universe are the reality that can be represented by 'nature', 'universe'. or 'Brahman' /'God', etc.., depending on the culture of the speaker.

Now if I were talking science with most anyone, I would use the concept 'universe' to represent 'all that exists', but if I was talking to someone spiritually inclined, I may talk about 'God' as the concept to represent 'all that exists'.

Btw, thank you for your commentary on the creation and destructive phases of a star's life, informative.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Why didn't the universe always exist? Because since God is supposed to be outside of time and is supposed to have always existed, then how could God have used a point in time to start creation? Any thoughts on this?

The universe may have always existed, in some form. Cyclic cosmology, anyone? We don't know for sure.

This has nothing to do with the question of God, I hope you realize. Cosmology is not theology.

 

[gnostic]

Please explain to us why you equate 'nothing' with energy? I said mass cannot come into existence from nothing, and you say I am wrong, matter can come from non-matter/energy. Energy is not nothing!

You need to re-read what @Subduction Zone posted up. He wrote -

No, you are quite wrong in that claim. Matter can be converted to energy and back so matter can clearly arise from non-matter.

He was refer to mass and energy, especially when he brought up Special Relativity.

Mass and energy are both properties of matters, and core of matter are the nucleus of matter, which comprise of hadron particles, such as protons & neutrons, and these have masses, therefore energy. It is these protons and neutrons that make up atoms, and therefore they are building blocks of matters.

You are right, energy isn’t nothing, but by themselves energy is non-matter. As reverse of conversion is true, energy can be converted into mass. And what have masses? composite particles, like protons & neutrons, which are themselves made of 3 quarks each…and quarks have masses.

The only particles I know of, that have no mass, are photons & gluons.

lastly, “non-matter” doesn’t mean “nothing”. I think you are confusing these 2 words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, we can agree to disagree wrt whether 'created' and 'formed' can be interchanged in the context of the formation of a new star, but for the sake of moving on, we can stick with 'formed' for now.

Please explain to us why you equate 'nothing' with energy? I said mass cannot come into existence from nothing, and you say I am wrong, matter can come from non-matter/energy. Energy is not nothing!

I did not equate nothing with energy. That is what creationists do. The fact is that creationists accuse others of saying that the universe came from nothing. I agree, energy is something.

Once again, what is the measured total energy of the universe?