Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Subduction Zone]

But make it up science has done, eg., there is no before the BB. If there is no before the BB, that is the very definition of non-existence, aka nothing.

No, if there is a before the BB it is a huge realm of "We do not know. . . . yet." Scientist love "we do not know yet" They live to try to answer questions that have not yet been answered.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

@paarsurrey
i am human being, like everyone else. I can have personal opinions, just like everyone else. And what you had quoted from me, you have cherry-picked a single word “believe”, out of several sentences, thereby taking what I said out of context. Here are the full sentences that you left out:
As I was basing on memory as to what @Polymath257 wrote, something about the Big Bang theory, but it has been some times ago, so I don’t remember which posts and threads.
so put in context of why I wrote the quoted in bold & red, i recall Polymath257 wrote something similar, that the Universe itself is expanding and that “space” isn’t expand into nothing…which is what you and @Ben Dhyan have been claiming.
I simply don’t remember where Polymath257’s original posts are, nor when he posted his replies. That’s why I used the word “believe”, and it was regards to Polymath257 posting similar concept about the Big Bang model, except I don’t know how to find these posts.
Although I considered myself as engineer, because of my qualifications in civil engineering and in computer science, these are applied science disciplines, not pure science, like physics or astrophysics. I know my limitations in these levels of physics, so I believe Polymath257 have better understanding of physics and in astrophysics in cosmology.
And btw, I am “agnostic”, not “atheist”. And it doesn’t matter if a person is agnostic or atheist, they can have personal opinions on just about anything that are not related to science or to mathematics (logic).
I can only speak for myself, and not for other agnostics or for other atheists…so, I like arts (drawing, painting or sculpture, and architecture), literature, music and cultures of many different communities, particularly food (cuisine), so I have many personal favourites and personal tastes, hence I have my own opinions.
I even like religions, particularly storytelling, such as myths and legends, but the differences between me and believers of respective religions, I don’t try to turn these myths into history or science.
Why would you think I cannot “believe” In anything, because I am an agnostic?
Agnostics can have opinions too. You are being rude.

believe

so I believe Polymath

I again cherry-pick.
If belief is such a hate word, then why believe in anything, yes, anything.
It is blindfaith that is discreditable, not that is supported by reason, right, please?

Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, if there is a before the BB it is a huge realm of "We do not know. . . . yet." Scientist love "we do not know yet" They live to try to answer questions that have not yet been answered.

Well as a human being, 'knock and door will be opened, seek and you will find', is the way to go for a potential leader, waiting to be told by others what to believe is for followers. The potential is within you to find out for yourself, read what others have to say by all means, but always remember it is understanding that trumps belief.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But as I said to gnostic wrt the balloon analogy. It is fine showing how every point on the surface moves away from every other point as it expands, and it would also be true for the inside points assuming a solid expanding ball, but the outside balloon surface points have to be expanding into space, or nothing, which is it?

The balloon analogy only works when referring to the two dimensional surface of the balloon. Introduce a third spatial dimension, and what was everything becomes the surface of something, and what was the universe becomes a boundary between one universe and another.

Thus some cosmologists talk about an infinite yet boundaried universe. Because it’s infinite, perhaps, in four dimensions, but boundaried in a higher dimensional reality. Thus the answer to your question, “What is the universe expanding into?” may be, “Into a higher dimensional reality.”

 

[Brian2]

Here is the problem, you do not even know if a god is possible much less the answer. Right now we do know that the universe exists. A god, not so much.

What is the problem? We don't have to know that a God exists to believe in a God for ourselves and our lives.
It is a different matter for science and for trying to show scientifically if there is a God or not.
I suppose it is OK to come to your conclusions about the universe and God through science but it is not OK to expect everyone to do the same, especially on a Religious Forum.
If science or human logic or empiricism is your religion then maybe it is OK but if that is the case then your way of thinking about life and God is a belief without evidence.

No, you are merely reinterpreting after the fact. One can always do that with poetic verses. In fact I could put just as valid of a flat Earth interpretation to those verses and it would seem reasonable if we had massive evidence for a Flat Earth.

No we can't always do that with poetic verses. You show that yourself when you say that for a flat earth we would need massive evidence in order for Isa 40:22 to be reinterpreted after the fact.
The point is that there is massive evidence for the BB and the BB agrees with what we find in the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

We only know the part we can see and that goes back to a possibly infinitely small piece, but what we don't know is is that point was part of a potentially infinite source and the piece we call the universe may only be a tiny part of a bigger thing. we do know that the universe extends beyond what we can see.

It is just not a good idea to make up things about that which we don't know and especially poor to assign them qualities without any evidence.

Theorising is fine. In a scientific way we can only theorise about space having expanded from nothing or from something infinitesimally small, and about what space may have expanded into.
Making up things about time, even though we don't know what time is or if it is real, seems OK to science, so it should be OK to go in other directions also.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But the reality represented by the concept of 'something' includes the reality of the concept of 'space and time', you can't have your cake and eat it too! Besides, time does not exist, it is the fact that existence continues to exist is what humans call 'time'. And by using some proxy method to measure existence continuing to exist, humans create the concept of an entity called time.

And also btw, 'God' is a concept along with the concept 'infinite' devised by humans. Dismiss the reality represented by the concept of 'infinite', and you dismiss the reality represented by the concept of 'God'.

The problem with trying to prove God using logic and reason, is that you are trying to prove with the intellect, something which can only truly be grasped with the spirit.

Accept the existence of God, Brahma, the Tao, the Spirit of the Universe etc, and you will see it everywhere in the cosmos. Demand that it’s existence be proven by logic, and you’ll see it knowhere, because you will have issued a set of demands which cannot be met. To the believer and the atheist alike, the universe still looks the same; our observations are identical, but our perceptions are markedly different.

Science has lifted a corner of the veil, and illuminated some of the natural processes which animate the universe. But it cannot, as Stephen Hawking so eloquently put it, tell us what puts the fire in the equations. We need philosophy, and perhaps the raising of consciousness which can only come from spiritual practice, to do that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The balloon analogy only works when referring to the two dimensional surface of the balloon. Introduce a third spatial dimension, and what was everything becomes the surface of something, and what was the universe becomes a boundary between one universe and another.

Thus some cosmologists talk about an infinite yet boundaried universe. Because it’s infinite, perhaps, in four dimensions, but boundaried in a higher dimensional reality. Thus the answer to your question, “What is the universe expanding into?” may be, “Into a higher dimensional reality.”

It doesn't even work for the two-dimensional surface of a circle; the points of the circumference are moving into empty circle as the sphere expands. Is this increase in the radius of the circle creating new space from non-existence or is it just moving into pre-existing space?

Any talk of a higher dimensional reality is just evasive conjecture trying to emulate a 'Let there be light' beginning to the universe. Any higher dimensional reality must still occupy the same space for if not, the question then arises wrt the space that is connecting the lower and higher reality spaces.

The universe is eternal because there was never a beginning, it is eternal because there is no nothing in existence anywhere ever, nor can there ever be nothing anywhere ever in eternity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem with trying to prove God using logic and reason, is that you are trying to prove with the intellect, something which can only truly be grasped with the spirit.

Accept the existence of God, Brahma, the Tao, the Spirit of the Universe etc, and you will see it everywhere in the cosmos. Demand that it’s existence be proven by logic, and you’ll see it knowhere, because you will have issued a set of demands which cannot be met. To the believer and the atheist alike, the universe still looks the same; our observations are identical, but our perceptions are markedly different.

Science has lifted a corner of the veil, and illuminated some of the natural processes which animate the universe. But it cannot, as Stephen Hawking so eloquently put it, tell us what puts the fire in the equations. We need philosophy, and perhaps the raising of consciousness which can only come from spiritual practice, to do that.

There is no need to prove God if you understand the reality represented by the concept. Forget about dogma, read what all the other cultures in the world have understood what the concept means and reflect on it. In the main, it represents a reality that is infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and eternal. There is only one obvious reality in existence that more or less meets these criteria, that is actual existence as it is, the universe, seen and unseen, known and unknown. There is no need to make anything up, just study what is and you will see that the reality meant to be represented by the concept of God is not a pie in the sky but plain reality itself.

Now atheists and theists who have a preset idea of what the concept God is meant to represent, or not meant, will thus will not get it. And that's ok, this is not about what others believe, this is about learning from scratch what and who you are, not in the context of some belief or disbelief, but in the actual existence you find yourself in.

 

[Brian2]

There is no need to prove God if you understand the reality represented by the concept. Forget about dogma, read what all the other cultures in the world have understood what the concept means and reflect on it. In the main, it represents a reality that is infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and eternal. There is only one obvious reality in existence that more or less meets these criteria, that is actual existence as it is, the universe, seen and unseen, known and unknown. There is no need to make anything up, just study what is and you will see that the reality meant to be represented by the concept of God is not a pie in the sky but plain reality itself.

Now atheists and theists who have a preset idea of what the concept God is meant to represent, or not meant, will thus will not get it. And that's ok, this is not about what others believe, this is about learning from scratch what and who you are, not in the context of some belief or disbelief, but in the actual existence you find yourself in.

The creator of this universe, the giver of life, is greater than the universe and has shown Himself in history to be real imo.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The creator of this universe, the giver of life, is greater than the universe and has shown Himself in history to be real imo.

I didn't say God was not real, I said the reality representing the concept of God and the reality of all existence/creation are one and the same. Think of the creator and the creation as two aspects of one whole

But if you believe the creator of the universe and the universe occupy different space, pray tell what is the space between them and where is the space of the creator in relation to the space of creation?

 

[Brian2]

But if you believe the creator of the universe and the universe occupy different space, pray tell what is the space between them and where is the space of the creator in relation to the space of creation?

The creator and universe can occupy the same space. God is spirit and can be everywhere in the universe without displacing the created things.
Think of the nature of solid matter on the quantum level. It is not as if electrons and other subatomic particles are absolutely solid things, and even if they were, it would not hinder God from being everywhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the problem? We don't have to know that a God exists to believe in a God for ourselves and our lives.
It is a different matter for science and for trying to show scientifically if there is a God or not.
I suppose it is OK to come to your conclusions about the universe and God through science but it is not OK to expect everyone to do the same, especially on a Religious Forum.
If science or human logic or empiricism is your religion then maybe it is OK but if that is the case then your way of thinking about life and God is a belief without evidence.

You can believe whatever you want. It is when you try to claim that it is factual that you take on a huge burden of proof. I know that you cannot support your god beliefs, you know that you cannot support your god beliefs. Which is why you never try. What you did was preaching instead of debating. By the way, n not everyone has a "religion". You should not assume that just because you have such beliefs that others have those beliefs as well.

No we can't always do that with poetic verses. You show that yourself when you say that for a flat earth we would need massive evidence in order for Isa 40:22 to be reinterpreted after the fact.
The point is that there is massive evidence for the BB and the BB agrees with what we find in the Bible.

Dude! You did the same thing! That was my point. The evidence exists for the shape of the Earth and you reinterpreted rather clear Flat Earth verses as if they applied to a globe. You supported my point with your statement.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The creator and universe can occupy the same space. God is spirit and can be everywhere in the universe without displacing the created things.
Think of the nature of solid matter on the quantum level. It is not as if electrons and other subatomic particles are absolutely solid things, and even if they were, it would not hinder God from being everywhere.

But that's the point, the reality you call God is everywhere, there is no nothing in existence. The creation is the manifestation of the creator/God.

An electron is not made by, or of something made by, a second creator.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The creator and universe can occupy the same space. God is spirit and can be everywhere in the universe without displacing the created things.
Think of the nature of solid matter on the quantum level. It is not as if electrons and other subatomic particles are absolutely solid things, and even if they were, it would not hinder God from being everywhere.

And btw Brian2, from the scientific view, this article shows the energy (we can call it spiritual imho) that is responsible for physical matter, electrons, atoms, etc..

The Secrets Hiding in the Vacuum

These quantum fields are always vibrating, even when those vibrations aren’t strong enough to produce a particle. If you take a box and empty out all of the stuff – all the electrons, all the photons, all the neutrinos, all the everything – the box is still filled with these quantum fields. Since those fields vibrate even in isolation, that means that the box is filled with invisible vacuum energy, also know as zero-point energy – the energy of these fundamental vibrations.

This means that the vacuum of the universe is really made of something. There’s no such thing as a true vacuum; wherever you go, there are always vibrating quantum fields.

 

[Brian2]

You can believe whatever you want. It is when you try to claim that it is factual that you take on a huge burden of proof. I know that you cannot support your god beliefs, you know that you cannot support your god beliefs. Which is why you never try. What you did was preaching instead of debating. By the way, n not everyone has a "religion". You should not assume that just because you have such beliefs that others have those beliefs as well.

You also should claim only that you believe that there is no God.

Dude! You did the same thing! That was my point. The evidence exists for the shape of the Earth and you reinterpreted rather clear Flat Earth verses as if they applied to a globe. You supported my point with your statement.

Isa 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth; its dwellers are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
IF you assume that the Bible teaches a flat earth then you might see the above verse as clearly flat earth verses, but the truth is that the above verse is not a clear flat earth verse.
BUT you make a distraction from the fact that Isa 40:22 is a clear verse which shows that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain, something which agrees with the stretching out of space/time continuum of science.

 

[Brian2]

But that's the point, the reality you call God is everywhere, there is no nothing in existence. The creation is the manifestation of the creator/God.

An electron is not made by, or of something made by, a second creator.

It does not make sense to say that because God is everywhere then that means that everything is a manifestation of God......................... unless of course if you think that God is not able to create things from nothing and so has to change part of Himself into whatever He is creating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You also should claim only that you believe that there is no God.

Why should I do that?

Isa 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth; its dwellers are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
IF you assume that the Bible teaches a flat earth then you might see the above verse as clearly flat earth verses, but the truth is that the above verse is not a clear flat earth verse.
BUT you make a distraction from the fact that Isa 40:22 is a clear verse which shows that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain, something which agrees with the stretching out of space/time continuum of science.

Actually a neutral approach leads to that conclusion if one reads the Hebrew. The world for circle is one of an inscribed circle as with a compass and as you know all such circles are flat. By the way, I am not "assuming" either way. I am merely going by a very literalistic interpretation of the verse. And the other verse that you referred to is not of a curtain but more of a tent. As the Earth being underneath it. A spherical Earth cannot be "under" anything. But a flat one could. A bare minimum understanding of geometry would again show that that verse supports a flat Earth more than spherical Earth. This only shows that one should not use the Bible for one's science. It tends to be wrong quite often when it comes to the sciences. That is an abuse of the Bible to use it that way.

 

[Brian2]

And btw Brian2, from the scientific view, this article shows the energy (we can call it spiritual imho) that is responsible for physical matter, electrons, atoms, etc..

The Secrets Hiding in the Vacuum

You can call it spiritual but imho that might be confusing the creator with the creation. Biblically speaking God created all things and that would include quantum fields.
We don't need to know how God did it or even theorise about that. We can do that, but should realise that what we are doing is no more than theorising.

 

[Brian2]

Why should I do that?

Because it is a belief and not a fact. (and really it isn't helpful to go off on a tangent about semantics and the difference between "believing" something and "lacking a belief" in the opposite thing.

Actually a neutral approach leads to that conclusion if one reads the Hebrew. The world for circle is one of an inscribed circle as with a compass and as you know all such circles are flat. By the way, I am not "assuming" either way. I am merely going by a very literalistic interpretation of the verse. And the other verse that you referred to is not of a curtain but more of a tent. As the Earth being underneath it. A spherical Earth cannot be "under" anything. But a flat one could. A bare minimum understanding of geometry would again show that that verse supports a flat Earth more than spherical Earth. This only shows that one should not use the Bible for one's science. It tends to be wrong quite often when it comes to the sciences. That is an abuse of the Bible to use it that way.

Looking down from above, the circle is flat, but that says nothing about the earth being flat.
A spherical earth is always under everything. "Down" is always towards the spherical earth.
An understanding of the verse is related to how we see scientific knowledge. The verse fits in with today's science and could be said to fit in with past understanding of the science also. It is the science that gives our understanding of the verse, which of itself, is neutral. If you insist that the verse is a flat earth verse that is how you will see it,,,,,,,,,,,, but really all you are doing is insisting that there have been and are people who read it that way.