Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Subduction Zone]

But the thread is about the longevity of the universe, and forgive me if I am repeating myself, but nothing can't and doesn't exist, not now, not ever. Therefore, it follows that existence itself never had a beginning and never has an ending. Only finite manifested aspects of existence have beginnings and endings, but the sum total of the essence of their being does not disappear.

Now if I make the claim that nothing doesn't exist, my proof is reality itself, if someone doubts my claim, then I say to them look around, find some, and the truth is that science cannot find any nothing, nor create nothing, not now, not ever. The only woo woo about is the idea that nothing can exist.

Complementary opposite energies within existence may cancel each other out to zero energy, but the underlying essence of this energy does not disappear, it is omnipresent whether in motion or static.

You do not know that. You cannot even support that. I tried to help you by asking you relevant questions but all that you could do was to make false replies to them where you abused the logical fallacies that you did not understand.

When someone asks you question you should try to at least think about them.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You do not know that. You cannot even support that. I tried to help you by asking you relevant questions but all that you could do was to make false replies to them where you abused the logical fallacies that you did not understand.

When someone asks you question you should try to at least think about them.

Existence is infinite, and eternal, that is reality. If anyone thinks otherwise, just try and prove that nothing can exist, what else is there to say. But if you have any relevant questions, please go ahead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Existence is infinite, and eternal, that is reality. If anyone thinks otherwise, just try and prove that nothing can exist, what else is there to say. But if you have any relevant questions, please go ahead.

No, that appears to be just wishful thinking on your part. How would you prove it? You do not appear to have any logical arguments for it. I am not trying to "prove" anything. Well except for the obvious fact that you are wrong when you make unsupported extreme statements. If you cannot support such claim then then others can just as easily dismiss your claims.

Meanwhile: What is south of the South Pole?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, that appears to be just wishful thinking on your part. How would you prove it? You do not appear to have any logical arguments for it. I am not trying to "prove" anything. Well except for the obvious fact that you are wrong when you make unsupported extreme statements. If you cannot support such claim then then others can just as easily dismiss your claims.

Meanwhile: What is south of the South Pole?

What is extreme is not an eternal infinite universe, but the belief in a finite temporary one. That it is infinite, and eternal, is existence itself as it is, devoid of any nothing, anywhere, anytime, past, present, or future, that could make it finite. If it were not so, there would be proof to show nothing is a reality.

Meanwhile, what do you think comprises the space between atoms in the intergalactic medium?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is extreme is not an eternal infinite universe, but the belief in a finite temporary one. That it is infinite, and eternal, is existence itself as it is, devoid of any nothing, anywhere, anytime, past, present, or future, that could make it finite. If it were not so, there would be proof to show nothing is a reality.

Meanwhile, what do you think comprises the space between atoms in the intergalactic medium?

Sorry, but what is extreme is to claim that you know something when you clearly have no clue.

And it is your turn to answer questions. Not mine.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It is hard to be polite to someone that keeps dodging reasonable questions. That is the act of someone that knows that he is wrong. Let me tell you the answer to my question:

The total measured energy of the universe is zero. Now think about the implications of that.

Well, no, let's not make claims we can't support. The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that positive energy in the form of mass is exactly balanced out by negative energy in the form of gravity. This has certainly not been measured, nor confirmed by observation. Greater reservoirs of negative energy than can be accounted for by the gravitational effect of baryonic matter, are required to cancel out the calculated mass of the observable universe. A hypothetical substance, referred to as dark matter, is taken to meet this requirement. But no dark matter particle has yet been observed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but what is extreme is to claim that you know something when you clearly have no clue.

And it is your turn to answer questions. Not mine.

Ok, thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, thank you.

Why do you keep dodging reasonable questions? I asked you what was South of the South Pole.

Here is another one, are you familiar with number lines at all? Specifically can you imagine or draw a number line for x >= 0?

 

[Pogo]

Existence is infinite, and eternal, that is reality. If anyone thinks otherwise, just try and prove that nothing can exist, what else is there to say. But if you have any relevant questions, please go ahead.

Not reality, just meaningless assertions.

 

[ChristineM]

Existence is infinite, and eternal

Do you have evidence for this claim?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you keep dodging reasonable questions? I asked you what was South of the South Pole.

Here is another one, are you familiar with number lines at all? Specifically can you imagine or draw a number line for x >= 0?

Why are you being so childish asking this same lame question, as if it was serious science, when it is more to do with conceptual language. 'South' is a human concept to represent the down side of the planetary axis of rotation, and thus logically the south pole is the most southern point on the planet. However, if you include the Earth's magnetic field as being an integral aspect of the Earth, which it technically is, then these field lines do extend further down beyond the south pole. Likewise, the north pole is the most northern point of Earth. South and north are complimentary opposite concepts like up and down, positive and negative, in and out, etc. to represent the apparent duality in the reality perceived by a human being.

No, I am not familiar with number lines, what is your point?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not reality, just meaningless assertions.

Now that is actually a meaningless assertion, no proof!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do you have evidence for this claim?

Science would have to be able to prove nothing exists for there to be a finite universe, and nothing is an impossibility because it does not exist. The logical deduction is that the universe is eternal and infinite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you being so childish asking this same lame question, as if it was serious science, when it is more to do with conceptual language. 'South' is a human concept to represent the down side of the planetary axis of rotation, and thus logically the south pole is the most southern point on the planet. However, if you include the Earth's magnetic field as being an integral aspect of the Earth, which it technically is, then these field lines do extend further down beyond the south pole. Likewise, the north pole is the most northern point of Earth. South and north are complimentary opposite concepts like up and down, positive and negative, in and out, etc. to represent the apparent duality in the reality perceived by a human being.

No, I am not familiar with number lines, what is your point?

You have no grounds for complaint. You were far more "childish" than I was. Debate like an adult please. In fact this is not really a debate. i was trying to show you how you were wrong but you seem to know that you were wrong. I asked you questions that you have yet to answer. All that you had in response were childish abuses of logical fallacies that you did not understand.

There is a point to my questions. Unlike yours. That is why I ask them.

As to the number line point early on I pointed out that the universe may be both eternal and have had a beginning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that is actually a meaningless assertion, no proof!

No, that was a valid comment that he made. Once again, this is a childish response. Think of how you would support your claims before you make them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science would have to be able to prove nothing exists for there to be a finite universe, and nothing is an impossibility because it does not exist. The logical deduction is that the universe is eternal and infinite.

What makes you think that is the logical deduction? I do not think that you understand logic at all. You also demonstrated that you do not even understand how science works.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have no grounds for complaint. You were far more "childish" than I was. Debate like an adult please. In fact this is not really a debate. i was trying to show you how you were wrong but you seem to know that you were wrong. I asked you questions that you have yet to answer. All that you had in response were childish abuses of logical fallacies that you did not understand.

There is a point to my questions. Unlike yours. That is why I ask them.

As to the number line point early on I pointed out that the universe may be both eternal and have had a beginning.

Nothing does not exist, so there was no beginning to existence, but there obviously are beginnings (and endings) to material manifestations, If there were a BB, this known 'universe' is a material manifestation existing in some preexisting medium.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have no grounds for complaint. You were far more "childish" than I was. Debate like an adult please. In fact this is not really a debate. i was trying to show you how you were wrong but you seem to know that you were wrong. I asked you questions that you have yet to answer. All that you had in response were childish abuses of logical fallacies that you did not understand.

There is a point to my questions. Unlike yours. That is why I ask them.

As to the number line point early on I pointed out that the universe may be both eternal and have had a beginning.

I also explained earlier that numbers are not reality, +1 -1 = 0 applies to relativity, not absolutes. The underlying medium of space is that through which positive and negative energy may flow. If they meet and cancel each other out, the medium is still present, eternally so, there is no nothing!
All the math in the world can't change the fact that the underlying medium of the universe is omnipresent, and does not go anywhere, it is not nothing and there was no beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, that was a valid comment that he made. Once again, this is a childish response. Think of how you would support your claims before you make them.

It depends on what one's standard of validity is. Your bar is set so low that any inane comment that is used against me by the bandwagon folk is fair in your eyes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What makes you think that is the logical deduction? I do not think that you understand logic at all. You also demonstrated that you do not even understand how science works.

Boy oh boy, ok, if there is no nothing in existence, there is something present everywhere, always. Everywhere means existence spatially is infinite, and always means eternal.