Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[gnostic]

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.

That’s true, excepting the part of inclusion of “God” and “Brahman”, which there are no evidence to support either of these existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Also, and this is a hard idea for many people to understand, the universe may have had a beginning and still have aways existed. Here is a question that can help people to understand: What is south of the South Pole?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

True, words are not the same thing as the reality they are meant to represent, in the same way cosmology is not the 'all that exists' that it is meant to represent.

That 'all that exists' reality is called 'God' in some cultures and is called 'universe' in scientific culture.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The question "What is south of the South Pole?" is a common logical fallacy known as a Red Herring that some use when their understanding is limited.

 

[gnostic]

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

You’re welcome. Thank you…especially as I wrote this with less than an hour of sleep.

I was afraid that might be incoherent, when I wrote that.

I do miss the emoji that have animation of “passing out”.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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




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.

I have reread and nothing changes, I said mass cannot come from nothing.

If you can provide evidence that anything at all can come for absolutely nothing, then please do so!

And please don't waste my time in further red herrings again, you've done that before!

 

[gnostic]

The question "What is south of the South Pole?" is a common logical fallacy known as a Red Herring that some use when their understanding is limited.

not really.

it depends on how someone may use this adage.

What people either forget, or ignore or misunderstand the Big Bang models, none of the models (from the original to present model) have ever proposed the “universe from nothing”.

All the BB cosmology have stated are the beginning of the formation of the Observable Universe. Beyond that the BB model don’t say anything about nothing, nor whether it is eternal.

The BB model only start with hot & dense beginning that can be observed at certain point, and nothing more than that, everything else is in the wind, left for other physicists & cosmologists to develop other theoretical models to explain those extras.

Based on the data release of the JWST & Planck missions, the Universe is 13.798 billion years old, that’s what they could calculate & estimate from the redshifts of distant galaxies and from the CMBR, respectively. Outside of these evidence, (other cosmologies proposed ) are purely theoretical so far…and at worse, speculative.

 

[Arnaud1221]

I would say that Heaven is more higher than the Universe. And the Universe is a creation.

 

[Balthazzar]

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?

Maybe it's only energy and in an active state until one day something changed, creating an effect that spiraled outward, some energy became less active, turning into matter and the matter was separated from the other types of energy creating differences in density between types, now observable to the human eye and our sensory ability. As for myself, I started my journey before reaching the mother ship, at which point she embraced me. I grew from a single cell organism into a zygote, then on to a fetus, after which I was separated from her womb, becoming my own biological system, complete with sensory perception and ability to grow and develop further. One day, I'll become a less active type of matter, and that which enables me to be active, will go back to where it came. The birth of a universe may well parallel the birth of children.

It grew into what it is.

 

[gnostic]

I have reread and nothing changes, I said mass cannot come from nothing.

@Subduction Zone wrote matters, not masses.

masses and energies are interconvertable, as they are equivalence to each other…and these 2 are properties of matters.

Now, while mass can be converted into energy, and energy into mass, it might not always reverse convert into the same types of mass it was before.

Do you understand that?

The standard model in particle physics, expressed most of the fundamental & elementary particles, and except with gluons & photons, each of these particles have very specific measurements of their respective masses.

And here is what you’d need to understand about quantum mechanics and quantum fields, is the unpredictable nature when dealing world at quantum level, the energy conversion might not reverse convert exactly to the same mass as it was before. Meaning there are no guarantees that it would convert exactly back to the masses of quarks (eg up & down quarks), quarks which building blocks of atoms, and therefore of MATTERS.

The point is that only stated that matters can be made from non-matters.

While the quarks are building blocks of protons and of neutrons, a single quark isn’t a matter. It required composite of 2 different types of quarks (up quarks & down quarks), but there needs to be 3 quarks to form either a proton or neutron.

But there are also chance, that energy might convert into other different types of particles, that because of unpredictable nature of the quantum world. As I said, quarks may the building block of matter, but proton and neutron are made of 3 quarks each. By them, if the quarks are not by strong nuclear force, these individual and separate quarks are not matters.

While hadron particles require 3 quarks. Mesons only require 2 quarks - a quark & its antiquark.

And I think I have just fried my brain.

anyway, non-matters don’t mean nothing. You are confusing 2 different words, and you thinking they means the same things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have reread and nothing changes, I said mass cannot come from nothing.

If you can provide evidence that anything at all can come for absolutely nothing, then please do so!

And please don't waste my time in further red herrings again, you've done that before!

Prove it. I can show that the opposite is true, but you made your claim more than once without any support. You are only referring to physical laws that you do not understand.

Also, you need to define what you mean by "nothing". I would say that the physical laws of the universe are not "nothing". But you might have a different definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say that Heaven is more higher than the Universe. And the Universe is a creation.

You can say that, but such a claim is of no value without evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question "What is south of the South Pole?" is a common logical fallacy known as a Red Herring that some use when their understanding is limited.

And you would need to prove that. And you cannot. You should have asked how it applies. Try to reason a bit. You put the burden of proof upon yourself when you make such claims. If you do not understand something it is always wiser to ask questions and own up to your ignorance rather than bulldozing on ahead ignoring your errors.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I would say that Heaven is more higher than the Universe. And the Universe is a creation.

The Universe is indeed a gift from the Creator.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

not really.

it depends on how someone may use this adage.

What people either forget, or ignore or misunderstand the Big Bang models, none of the models (from the original to present model) have ever proposed the “universe from nothing”.

All the BB cosmology have stated are the beginning of the formation of the Observable Universe. Beyond that the BB model don’t say anything about nothing, nor whether it is eternal.

The BB model only start with hot & dense beginning that can be observed at certain point, and nothing more than that, everything else is in the wind, left for other physicists & cosmologists to develop other theoretical models to explain those extras.

Based on the data release of the JWST & Planck missions, the Universe is 13.798 billion years old, that’s what they could calculate & estimate from the redshifts of distant galaxies and from the CMBR, respectively. Outside of these evidence, (other cosmologies proposed ) are purely theoretical so far…and at worse, speculative.

Ok, none of the models ever proposed a "universe from nothing". It follows logically then that the mass of the known universe existed in some form from which the BB formed the universe. Iow, no new mass came into existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you would need to prove that. And you cannot. You should have asked how it applies. Try to reason a bit. You put the burden of proof upon yourself when you make such claims. If you do not understand something it is always wiser to ask questions and own up to your ignorance rather than bulldozing on ahead ignoring your errors.

I ask and am given a logical fallacy as an answer.

For example, where did the mass (form does not matter) of the universe come from?

 

[gnostic]

I would say that Heaven is more higher than the Universe. And the Universe is a creation.

you are quipping, are you not?

Probably not.

The problem with using the word “heaven”, it is I’ll-defined, and have many possible meanings, which make the usage of heaven, to be quite ambiguous.

so higher than what?

In Genesis 1, the heaven is the sky (Day 2), and it’s situated INSIDE this imaginary dome or vault (firmament). So the heaven is where the sun, moon and stars are (Day 4), as well as the same heaven that birds fly through (Day 5).

so if the heaven is higher, then why does Day 2 say there are water above the dome or firmament - eg “the water above”?

if Day 2 is true, then there are water above the “heaven”.

That doesn’t make any logical sense, because Genesis 1 is unrealistic as it narrated about the heavens.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Prove it. I can show that the opposite is true, but you made your claim more than once without any support. You are only referring to physical laws that you do not understand.

Also, you need to define what you mean by "nothing". I would say that the physical laws of the universe are not "nothing". But you might have a different definition.

Nothing can come from nothing, if you think otherwise, prove it.

Nothing means nothing, it doesn't exist.

 

[Regiomontanus]

For example, where did the mass (form does not matter) of the universe come from?

According to the current concordance model in cosmology, the answer is: E = mc^2. The very early universe was pure energy. The rest follows from the physical laws and processes of the universe.

You will learn much about this topic by reading a textbook on astronomy than spending time here lol.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, none of the models ever proposed a "universe from nothing". It follows logically then that the mass of the known universe existed in some form from which the BB formed the universe. Iow, no new mass came into existence.

maybe, maybe not.

we just don’t know.

what we do know, the BB theory, not a single model, have proposed this “universe from nothing“. It based on creationists not even bothering to learn what actual materials say.