Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

So you are saying that there is a second entity, and two creations, one created by the reality known as God, and so who is it that creates that manifestation which is not created by God?

Sure, God is one and is everything, spirit and matter, there is nothing that is created that is not created from God. It is humans who make distinctions such as spirit and matter, creator and creation, they are meaningful for our understanding but in fact, the reality represented by the concept 'God' is an indivisible one.

A bit like the electrons and photons that come into existence from the zero-point energy field and then fall back into it (field is just a name to represent the reality that others may call spirit imho), in a never ending process., it is all an indivisible one that is forever changing.

 

[gnostic]

Because if it is not expanding into something, it is expanding into nothing, and nothing does not exist.

Can you confirm, you do believe the universe is expanding, yes?

As I have stated previously, the Big Bang theory only focused on the cosmology of the Observable Universe.

And to date, what is observable is right up to sky survey made by several space missions that mapped out the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR):

1. Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), 1989 - 1993
2. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), 2001 - 2010
3. Planck (Planck Surveyor), 2009 - 2013, ESA mission

The Planck has instruments that have higher resolution & sensitivity than that of WMAP’s instruments, so the CMBR images and data are more accurate. Below, is the CMBR map by ESA’s Planck:

According to the 2013 data release of the Planck, the Universe is 13.798±0.037 billion-years-old, at the above image occurred during the start of the Recombination Epoch, when the Universe was about 370,000 years old.

The Recombination Epoch was time when the nuclei of ionized elements were bonded with electrons for the first time, thereby atoms became electrically neutral. This caused 2 things:

1. the Universe, or more precisely “space” became transparent for the first time (prior to that the Universe was opaque, because the universe was just hot plasma),
2. and the bonding caused photons (light) decoupled and traveled freely through space (whereas before photons were scattered due to Universe being hot opaque plasma).

When the Universe was hot plasma, and all atoms were completely ionized (no electrons attached to these early atoms), as I stated the universe was opaque, thereby acting like Event Horizon, where no technology could observe beyond the CMBR. This make it difficult to observe the Universe prior to the Recombination Epoch, however the CMBR do provide some details as to what happened before this epoch, that astrophysicists can summarise as to how early atom, smaller particles formed, and when the cosmic inflation occurred.

As how to your question -

“Can you confirm, you do believe the universe is expanding, yes?”​

The answer is yes.

Since you don’t understand the balloon analogy, I won’t use here.

The Universe is expanding, because of the earlier predictions made by Alexander Friedmann (1922) & Georges Lemaître (1927) use the FLRW Metric on Einstein’s Field Equations (hence it is renamed Friedmann Equations when using this metric), and Lemaître’s prediction of the Redshift.

The Redshift is the distance measurement of the distant galaxies or other objects, based on the visible light spectrum. The more distant the galaxy, the more the wavelength of the object will appear towards the red end of the EM spectrum. That‘s indication the object (eg galaxy) is moving away from the Observer, hence the indication that these objects also moving away from each other, and the Universe is expanding.

Edwin Hubble made the discovery in 1929, so it was the earliest evidence for the expanding universe model. The Friedmann equations and the Redshift together formed the Hubble’s Law, that not only the Universe is expanding, it also appeared to be isotopic.

Ever since 1929, many observatories have been using the Redshift Survey to map all astronomical objects, eg stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, quasars, etc. Examples, 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, DEEP2 Redshift Survey, etc; each of these observatories have made over 100,000 redshift measurements. The Hubble & JWST also make such measurements.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As I have stated previously, the Big Bang theory only focused on the cosmology of the Observable Universe.

And to date, what is observable is right up to sky survey made by several space missions that mapped out the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR):

1. Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), 1989 - 1993
2. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), 2001 - 2010
3. Planck (Planck Surveyor), 2009 - 2013, ESA mission

The Planck has instruments that have higher resolution & sensitivity than that of WMAP’s instruments, so the CMBR images and data are more accurate. Below, is the CMBR map by ESA’s Planck:

View attachment 96071

According to the 2013 data release of the Planck, the Universe is 13.798±0.037 billion-years-old, at the above image occurred during the start of the Recombination Epoch, when the Universe was about 370,000 years old.

The Recombination Epoch was time when the nuclei of ionized elements were bonded with electrons for the first time, thereby atoms became electrically neutral. This caused 2 things:

1. the Universe, or more precisely “space” became transparent for the first time (prior to that the Universe was opaque, because the universe was just hot plasma),
2. and the bonding caused photons (light) decoupled and traveled freely through space (whereas before photons were scattered due to Universe being hot opaque plasma).

When the Universe was hot plasma, and all atoms were completely ionized (no electrons attached to these early atoms), as I stated the universe was opaque, thereby acting like Event Horizon, where no technology could observe beyond the CMBR. This make it difficult to observe the Universe prior to the Recombination Epoch, however the CMBR do provide some details as to what happened before this epoch, that astrophysicists can summarise as to how early atom, smaller particles formed, and when the cosmic inflation occurred.

As how to your question -

“Can you confirm, you do believe the universe is expanding, yes?”​

The answer is yes.

Since you don’t understand the balloon analogy, I won’t use here.

The Universe is expanding, because of the earlier predictions made by Alexander Friedmann (1922) & Georges Lemaître (1927) use the FLRW Metric on Einstein’s Field Equations (hence it is renamed Friedmann Equations when using this metric), and Lemaître’s prediction of the Redshift.

The Redshift is the distance measurement of the distant galaxies or other objects, based on the visible light spectrum. The more distant the galaxy, the more the wavelength of the object will appear towards the red end of the EM spectrum. That‘s indication the object (eg galaxy) is moving away from the Observer, hence the indication that these objects also moving away from each other, and the Universe is expanding.

Edwin Hubble made the discovery in 1929, so it was the earliest evidence for the expanding universe model. The Friedmann equations and the Redshift together formed the Hubble’s Law, that not only the Universe is expanding, it also appeared to be isotopic.

Ever since 1929, many observatories have been using the Redshift Survey to map all astronomical objects, eg stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, quasars, etc. Examples, 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, DEEP2 Redshift Survey, etc; each of these observatories have made over 100,000 redshift measurements. The Hubble & JWST also make such measurements.

So if the universe is expanding, and you agree that nothing does not exist, then it follows logically that the universe is expanding into something. I would use the term 'space' to represent that something.

So I refer you to the article I posted to Brian2 above about the zero point energy field. The Secrets Hiding in the Vacuum

This is what constitutes universal space, it is omnipresent. If you believe in an expanding universe, do you also believe that this zero point energy field is being simultaneously created to fill the ever increasing volume of space of the expansion, or do you accept the BB universe is expanding into an existing infinite/multiverse zpe field.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

So I am using the word God to represent the one reality of all that is, creator and creation, and you are making a distinction and saying the word God is the creator, but not the creation, yet God made the creation from Himself.

So once the creator part of God that is used to become the creation, it is no longer considered to be part of God?

Oh, but if you do not know what you are in the context of all that is, then you remain a lost soul. Since everything that exists was created by God, everything is an expression of God, but most souls are not aware of their divine heritage or are aware and deny it. More than that, once you realize what you are, then you must find out who you are. This is not theorizing, you must understand way beyond what science understands, the underlying pure divine unity of all that is. The Father and I are one!

 

[Brian2]

So you are saying that there is a second entity, and two creations, one created by the reality known as God, and so who is it that creates that manifestation which is not created by God?

Sure, God is one and is everything, spirit and matter, there is nothing that is created that is not created from God. It is humans who make distinctions such as spirit and matter, creator and creation, they are meaningful for our understanding but in fact, the reality represented by the concept 'God' is an indivisible one.

A bit like the electrons and photons that come into existence from the zero-point energy field and then fall back into it (field is just a name to represent the reality that others may call spirit imho), in a never ending process., it is all an indivisible one that is forever changing.

No I am not saying that there is a second entity and 2 creations. I am saying that there is one creator and that this creator created the creation from nothing and is not part of His creation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No I am not saying that there is a second entity and 2 creations. I am saying that there is one creator and that this creator created the creation from nothing and is not part of His creation.

But there is no nothing because it is an impossibility,

Nothing means non-existence, there is none in existence, and never was, and never will be because it is an impossibility.

Think about it, if non-existence does not exist, then God Himself even will never find it, not because he isn't looking everywhere throughout infinite space, but there is no non-existence to be found because non-existence is non-existent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Yes, it would be a belief. Once again, so what? Oh, no I see. You do not understand how that is a significant difference. Your mind is likely closed due to your beliefs. You may not be able to even think of anything else. A lack of belief is rational. It is keeping an open mind, even when the opposition is almost certainly wrong. It makes polite discussion much more difficult. That is why atheists will so often say, show me some evidence or at least make a rational argument and I will change my mind.

I do not have a belief as much as you would like me to have one.

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.

No, a circular Earth can be below the "heavens". The heavens as written in the Bible is a nonsensical idea on a spherical Earth. People are naturally flat Earth believers since it is very hard for most to think three dimensionally. Whenever I am looking at almost any map my mind makes that a flat surface even if it is the entire US.

There are other flat Earth verses as well. More than once one could see the entire Earth from a high point. That can only work on a flat Earth. There are no clear spherical Earth verses. There are only examples of strained reinterpretation after the fact.

 

[Brian2]

But there is no nothing because it is an impossibility,

Nothing means non-existence, there is none in existence, and never was, and never will be because it is an impossibility.

Think about it, if non-existence does not exist, then God Himself even will never find it, not because he isn't looking everywhere throughout infinite space, but there is no non-existence to be found because non-existence is non-existent.

In the physical universe there is always something even in a vacuum. But that does not mean that this something is God.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, it would be a belief. Once again, so what? Oh, no I see. You do not understand how that is a significant difference. Your mind is likely closed due to your beliefs. You may not be able to even think of anything else. A lack of belief is rational. It is keeping an open mind, even when the opposition is almost certainly wrong. It makes polite discussion much more difficult. That is why atheists will so often say, show me some evidence or at least make a rational argument and I will change my mind.

I do not have a belief as much as you would like me to have one.

If you want to say that you just lack a belief, that is fine. If you want to believe that you should keep an open mind and not commit one way or the other, that is your choice. In all practical ways it comes down to the same thing.

No, a circular Earth can be below the "heavens". The heavens as written in the Bible is a nonsensical idea on a spherical Earth. People are naturally flat Earth believers since it is very hard for most to think three dimensionally. Whenever I am looking at almost any map my mind makes that a flat surface even if it is the entire US.

There are other flat Earth verses as well. More than once one could see the entire Earth from a high point. That can only work on a flat Earth. There are no clear spherical Earth verses. There are only examples of strained reinterpretation after the fact.

I would say that the problem is that Hebrew, afaik, has no word for "spherical".
There are ways that the Bible has shown a picture of the earth like the modern picture we have however. Well there is some reading of a modern understanding into the passages, but the passages agree with a modern understanding, just as Isa 40:22 does.
Isa 40: 22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth upon nothing.

Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?..............
...................................................................................................................
........................................
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,

We can point to "foundations" as if it negates the idea that the earth hangs on nothing, but foundations don't have to be solid rock.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In the physical universe there is always something even in a vacuum. But that does not mean that this something is God.

It is the spirit of God, where else do you think you would find the spirit, it is omnipresent? As is the zpe, as is the ether, as is dark energy, etc.. All these are just different names for the one omnipresent energy of God.

They are not all different energies occupying the same space, they are just different names for the same one omnipresent reality of God the spirit, in infinite space. The physical manifestation is made of this same omnipresent spiritual/dark/etheric/astral/quantum vacuum/energy as we see when the electron collapses back into the omnipresent spirit. The ancients knew this.

 

[gnostic]

So if the universe is expanding, and you agree that nothing does not exist, then it follows logically that the universe is expanding into something.

Wow! You are being really annoyingly tiresome.

I have never - not even once - did I ever support the idea of there being “nothing” in the Universe. That should have settled the matter.

But, no. You’ve misunderstood my position. You’ve ignored what I am trying to say. And you have twisted my words, again, and again.

I keep telling you that I don’t think nothingness is even being proposed in the Big Bang model, but you still keep bringing it up, as I have not said anything at all.

It like you are trying to play a cat-and-mouse-game with me. And seriously, it is really growing old on me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wow! You are being really annoyingly tiresome.

I have never - not even once - did I ever support the idea of there being “nothing” in the Universe. That should have settled the matter.

But, no. You’ve misunderstood my position. You’ve ignored what I am trying to say. And you have twisted my words, again, and again.

I keep telling you that I don’t think nothingness is even being proposed in the Big Bang model, but you still keep bringing it up, as I have not said anything at all.

It like you are trying to play a cat-and-mouse-game with me. And seriously, it is really growing old on me.

So you didn't answer my question, we agree there is no nothing, so what is the BB expanding into?

 

[Brian2]

It is the spirit of God, where else do you think you would find the spirit, it is omnipresent? As is the zpe, as is the ether, as is dark energy, etc.. All these are just different names for the one omnipresent energy of God.

They are not all different energies occupying the same space, they are just different names for the same one omnipresent reality of God the spirit, in infinite space. The physical manifestation is made of this same omnipresent spiritual/dark/etheric/astral/quantum vacuum/energy as we see when the electron collapses back into the omnipresent spirit. The ancients knew this.

That is an interesting theory but I see it as part of the creation of God which did not exist until God created it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is an interesting theory but I see it as part of the creation of God which did not exist until God created it.

Yes, I know, I was taught that too. But only after studying other religious traditions, I realized that if the Genesis story concerns this star system, the light that was created was our sun, then that creation did happen in time and thus the language used is appropriate. However, the concept of a preexisting 'all that exists' reality means that time did not begin simultaneously with our planet, and that the universe is infinite and eternal, only created things have beginnings and endings.

The more I have learned, the more it became clear that God is manifest as the universe, there was never a beginning, there will never be an ending in all eternity, but in the relative nature of the manifested creation, there are always births and deaths, for all eternity. Unless and until our soul is 'born of the spirit', it/we will not attain to Heaven as an eternal.

 

[gnostic]

So you didn't answer my question, we agree there is no nothing, so what is the BB expanding into?

Again, you are not paying attention.

I didn't answer, but it seem to go over your head. How many times must I give you the answer.

There are NO "outside of the Universe"...so the Universe isn't expanding into this "outside".​

There is just the Universe. All there are, is the Universe, and it is that Universe that expanding. END OF THE STORY.

You clearly didn't understand the balloon analogy, because you were too busy thinking about the outside of the balloon, that you completely ignore that the balloon itself is the focus of the analogy.

It is really annoying, that I must repeat myself. I gave you my answer.

You really don't understand the BB cosmology...you never have.

Second, the BB cosmology have ONLY EXPLAIN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, nothing more, nothing less. That's the scope of the BB cosmology.

You do understand what they mean by "scope", don't you?

If you want to talk about the Universe being eternal, then you should be looking at other theoretical, cosmological models that do look into the Universe being infinite. For instance, the Cyclical Universe model, where the universe undergo through a series of expansion & contraction, seemingly endless succession.

All cosmological models that propose some types of eternal Universe, are all untestable & untested, so they are only speculation, hence they are not science. Until you can demonstrate the universe is eternal, as in having evidence, then that’s what they will always be - speculation, or at worse wishful fantasies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The creator and universe can occupy the same space.

Euhm.....
No. The creator of space necessarily must be someplace that is not "in" 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.

Engaging in quantum woo now?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, you are not paying attention.

I didn't answer, but it seem to go over your head. How many times must I give you the answer.

There are NO "outside of the Universe"...so the Universe isn't expanding into this "outside".​

There is just the Universe. All there are, is the Universe, and it is that Universe that expanding. END OF THE STORY.

You clearly didn't understand the balloon analogy, because you were too busy thinking about the outside of the balloon, that you completely ignore that the balloon itself is the focus of the analogy.

It is really annoying, that I must repeat myself. I gave you my answer.

You really don't understand the BB cosmology...you never have.

Second, the BB cosmology have ONLY EXPLAIN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, nothing more, nothing less. That's the scope of the BB cosmology.

You do understand what they mean by "scope", don't you?

If you want to talk about the Universe being eternal, then you should be looking at other theoretical, cosmological models that do look into the Universe being infinite. For instance, the Cyclical Universe model, where the universe undergo through a series of expansion & contraction, seemingly endless succession.

All cosmological models that propose some types of eternal Universe, are all untestable & untested, so they are only speculation, hence they are not science. Until you can demonstrate the universe is eternal, as in having evidence, then that’s what they will always be - speculation, or at worse wishful fantasies.

Ok, just up thread you made a song and dance about you never having supported the idea of there being nothing, absolute nothing cannot exist.. We can agree on this.

But if there was never a nothing, the universe has been existing eternally, and this is my logical position.

But now you seem to believe that the universe is not eternal, but that it had a BB beginning? It is not logical to believe the universe had a beginning, for if nothing does not exist, something other than nothing had to exist always.

Now there could be a beginning of a new multiverse universe, for then it is the multiverse in which the BB takes place, but we can agree the universe did not BB from nothing.

So a multiverse it is then?

 

[oldbadger]

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?

Ah! But it's energy and matter did!
It always did exist, but not as this universe.

You didn't exist always, but the energy and matter that is you DID.

Got it?

 

[gnostic]

But if there was never a nothing, the universe has been existing eternally, and this is my logical position.

Logical…perhaps.

But science…no,.

Scientific facts, require evidence, not merely logic.

As there are currently no evidence to support the universe being eternal, then the logic is still speculative, not fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you want to say that you just lack a belief, that is fine. If you want to believe that you should keep an open mind and not commit one way or the other, that is your choice. In all practical ways it comes down to the same thing.

No, I explained why that is wrong. I will not do so again.

I would say that the problem is that Hebrew, afaik, has no word for "spherical".
There are ways that the Bible has shown a picture of the earth like the modern picture we have however. Well there is some reading of a modern understanding into the passages, but the passages agree with a modern understanding, just as Isa 40:22 does.
Isa 40: 22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth upon nothing.

Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?..............
...................................................................................................................
........................................
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,

We can point to "foundations" as if it negates the idea that the earth hangs on nothing, but foundations don't have to be solid rock.

They had a word for a ball. Now maybe they only played American football and only had balls with pointy ends, but I doubt it.