Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

...

What is the evidence for these claims about the universe and related to the universe?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Yes, but one man's trusted intuition is another's speculation. But that's ok, learning from mistakes is quite effective.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

no evidence to support the universe being eternal

Yes, universe is not eternal, its Creator is eternal, it is one of His attributes:

2:118
He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a thing, He does only say to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.

Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search

In Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Urdu.

www.alislam.org

Right?

Regards
_________________
Original Arabic narration/text from Muhammad's time is below:-
2:118
بَدِیۡعُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالۡاَرۡضِ ؕ وَاِذَا قَضٰۤی اَمۡرًا فَاِنَّمَا یَقُوۡلُ لَہٗ کُنۡ فَیَکُوۡنُ ﴿۱۱۸

 

[gnostic]

But now you seem to believe that the universe is not eternal, but that it had a BB beginning?

No.

What I am saying that we have no evidence to support that position. Perhaps it is eternal. Perhaps it isn’t. We don’t know.

The honest position would be, to admit that “we don’t know”…when the evidence don’t support it.

I see no reason to accept anything that are in doubt, and that are unsupported by evidence.

Until you can present evidence that verify the universe is indeed eternal, I do not see any reason to accept things that are not factual.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No.

What I am saying that we have no evidence to support that position. Perhaps it is eternal. Perhaps it isn’t. We don’t know.

The honest position would be, to admit that “we don’t know”…when the evidence don’t support it.

I see no reason to accept anything that are in doubt, and that are unsupported by evidence.

Until you can present evidence that verify the universe is indeed eternal, I do not see any reason to accept things that are not factual.

Ok, I am fine with your position "Perhaps it is eternal. Perhaps it isn’t." You will be notified if and when the appropriate evidence that you request is available.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but one man's trusted intuition is another's speculation. But that's ok, learning from mistakes is quite effective.

You need to learn what is and is not evidence in the sciences. I can help you with that concept.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You need to learn what is and is not evidence in the sciences. I can help you with.

Evidence for BB science is the biblical "Let there be light" quote. The universe is eternal, get over it, there is no nothing!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence for BB science is the biblical "Let there be light" quote. The universe is eternal, get over it, there is no nothing!

Like I said, you need to learn what is and what is not evidence. Reinterpreting the Bible after the fact is not evidence.

 

[gnostic]

You will be notified if and when the appropriate evidence that you request is available.

Sarcasm aside, Ben.

Ok, I am fine with your position "Perhaps it is eternal. Perhaps it isn’t."

You’ve finally getting it! Hallelujah!

Logic is good…even great. But science requires more than logic. Evidence is the only really to if the logic is true & scientific…or not.

So unless, you have those evidence, it isn’t true, nor science.

Without even a single evidence (as in zero evidence), then such logic is unfalsifiable, untestable, and so it would be just as pseudoscience as Young Earth Creation or Intelligent Design or Astrology.

 

[cladking]

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

Perhaps science is right and the Creator occupied a point at the very start of the big bang.

So why couldn't the Creator still exist at this point? Perhaps the Creator exists in a sixth dimension and overlaps at a single point.

Need I remind you that a point has no dimension at all so it is you who believes creation came from nothing? A moving universe and moving Creator in another dimension could overlap anywhere at any time or not at all.

Who died and made believers in science the holiest of all thous?

 

[Brian2]

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

Hmmm, maybe, maybe not.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Thanks for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for that.

Do realize that having a word for "ball" means that they had a word for sphere?

 

[gnostic]

Yes, but one man's trusted intuition is another's speculation. But that's ok, learning from mistakes is quite effective.

Wow, ben. You really are a piece of work.

Science is a methodology of acquiring knowledge and TESTING the knowledge with evidence or experiments, or both (experiments & evidence).

This “testing”, is essential stage of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is how to weed out incorrect or weak hypotheses or incorrect or outdated theories.

All theories are only “provisional” scientific knowledge. They only have the status of “scientific theory“, if there are sufficient evidence to support each theory. No theories, past or current - are immune from being updated or even be replaced by better alternative theories, including the Big Bang theory.

The big bang theory isn’t a religion, it isn’t omnipotent or omniscient, it isn’t infallible or inerrant.

It has it share of problems, but the BB scientists have done much to learn from their mistakes, as well as to seek to understand what they don’t know. That’s a clear indication that the BB models are not omniscience, nor inerrant.

it is funny how you equated the BB models with religion & religious scriptures:

Evidence for BB science is the biblical "Let there be light" quote.

But you say we should trust a person’s “intuition”?

You wrote:

“Yes, but one man's trusted intuition is another's speculation.”​

Whose intuition should we trust?

Yours, Ben? Should we trust your intuition? Should we trust your logic or your reasoning? Do you think your logic or intuition, are infallible & inerrant?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wow, ben. You really are a piece of work.

Science is a methodology of acquiring knowledge and TESTING the knowledge with evidence or experiments, or both (experiments & evidence).

This “testing”, is essential stage of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is how to weed out incorrect or weak hypotheses or incorrect or outdated theories.

All theories are only “provisional” scientific knowledge. They only have the status of “scientific theory“, if there are sufficient evidence to support each theory. No theories, past or current - are immune from being updated or even be replaced by better alternative theories, including the Big Bang theory.

The big bang theory isn’t a religion, it isn’t omnipotent or omniscient, it isn’t infallible or inerrant.

It has it share of problems, but the BB scientists have done much to learn from their mistakes, as well as to seek to understand what they don’t know. That’s a clear indication that the BB models are not omniscience, nor inerrant.

it is funny how you equated the BB models with religion & religious scriptures:



But you say we should trust a person’s “intuition”?

You wrote:

“Yes, but one man's trusted intuition is another's speculation.”​

Whose intuition should we trust?

Yours, Ben? Should we trust your intuition? Should we trust your logic or your reasoning? Do you think your logic or intuition, are infallible & inerrant?

Science is fine for dealing with matter, but not spirit. The 95% of the universe that science knows as dark energy, or the quantum vacuum, or zpe, is the same realty to which I would also add such concepts as spirit or ether. Now the difference in approach to understanding this reality is that wrt religion, it is a subjective experience, wrt science, it is an attempt to objectively learn about it.

So you see, science and religion are complementary, and objective science practice does not have the focus on the subjective and vice versa for religion.

 

[Brian2]

Do realize that having a word for "ball" means that they had a word for sphere?

Yes, they could use the same word that is used for ball. But using the word for circle in Isa 40:22 does not mean that it is a flat earth verse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, they could use the same word that is used for ball. But using the word for circle in Isa 40:22 does not mean that it is a flat earth verse.

The point is that it does work better as a Flat Earth verse than a spherical Earth verse. The writers of the Old Testament books likely were flat Earth believers. That does not mean that they were stupid or even ignorant since such basic knowledge was lacking at that time.

 

[gnostic]

Science is fine for dealing with matter, but not spirit. The 95% of the universe that science knows as dark energy, or the quantum vacuum, or zpe, is the same realty to which I would also add such concepts as spirit or ether. Now the difference in approach to understanding this reality is that wrt religion, it is a subjective experience, wrt science, it is an attempt to objectively learn about it.

So you see, science and religion are complementary, and objective science practice does not have the focus on the subjective and vice versa for religion.

The Universe’s divisions of the “mass-energy density” (given in percentages) are based on the Lambda-CDM (ΛCDM) model of the Big Bang theory, in which CDM stands for Cold Dark Matter, and Lambda (Λ) is the symbol denoting the ”Cosmological Constant” that supposed to represent Dark Energy or Vacuum Energy. Dark Matter & Dark Energy have opposite casualties and effects on cosmic gravitation.

ΛCDM was the latest model (the 4th model) to be developed for the Big Bang theory in the late 1990s, to explain the “formation” & “distribution” of large-scale structures (eg molecular clouds, galaxies, galactic clusters, etc) of the universe, explain the abundance of light elements (hydrogen, helium) in the early universe, explain the missing masses - Dark Matter - that keep each galaxy together, and to explain what drive drive the Universe expansion - Dark Energy.

The theoretical astrophysicists & cosmologists have reused Albert Einstein‘s Cosmological Constant (Λ) that was meant to be used with his failed Static Universe hypothesis (1917); the constant was meant to be used with the Einstein Field Equations (EFE) for General Relativity.

Anyway, ΛCDM divide the mass-energy densities between baryonic matters (all the atomic elements in the Periodic Table, and the molecules), Dark Matter & Dark Energy.

if you recall, Einstein was one who developed the Special Relativity’s most iconic equation (1905) - E = mc^2 - was the equation that explained relationship between mass and energy, hence his Mass-Energy Equivalence.

NASA WMAP & ESA Planck were the space missions that measured & calculated these distribution of mass-energy densities. The actual percent for Dark Energy is actually 69% for Planck (2013) and 72.8% for WMAP (2012), not your 95%.

Dark Matter makes up 26.8% (WMAP 22.7%). And baryons 4.82% (WMAP 4.56%).

The 95% come from the sum of Dark Matter & Dark Energy.

Dark Energy is why causing the Universe to expand, and accelerating its expansion. while Dark Matter is what holding galaxies together, including the spiral outer arms rotating at the same speed as the inner arms. Our Milky Way wouldn’t exist if it were for Dark Matter.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The Universe’s divisions of the “mass-energy density” (given in percentages) are based on the Lambda-CDM (ΛCDM) model of the Big Bang theory, in which CDM stands for Cold Dark Matter, and Lambda (Λ) is the symbol denoting the ”Cosmological Constant” that supposed to represent Dark Energy or Vacuum Energy. Dark Matter & Dark Energy have opposite casualties and effects on cosmic gravitation.

ΛCDM was the latest model (the 4th model) to be developed for the Big Bang theory in the late 1990s, to explain the “formation” & “distribution” of large-scale structures (eg molecular clouds, galaxies, galactic clusters, etc) of the universe, explain the abundance of light elements (hydrogen, helium) in the early universe, explain the missing masses - Dark Matter - that keep each galaxy together, and to explain what drive drive the Universe expansion - Dark Energy.

The theoretical astrophysicists & cosmologists have reused Albert Einstein‘s Cosmological Constant (Λ) that was meant to be used with his failed Static Universe hypothesis (1917); the constant was meant to be used with the Einstein Field Equations (EFE) for General Relativity.

Anyway, ΛCDM divide the mass-energy densities between baryonic matters (all the atomic elements in the Periodic Table, and the molecules), Dark Matter & Dark Energy.

if you recall, Einstein was one who developed the Special Relativity’s most iconic equation (1905) - E = mc^2 - was the equation that explained relationship between mass and energy, hence his Mass-Energy Equivalence.

NASA WMAP & ESA Planck were the space missions that measured & calculated these distribution of mass-energy densities. The actual percent for Dark Energy is actually 69% for Planck (2013) and 72.8% for WMAP (2012), not your 95%.

Dark Matter makes up 26.8% (WMAP 22.7%). And baryons 4.82% (WMAP 4.56%).

The 95% come from the sum of Dark Matter & Dark Energy.

Dark Energy is why causing the Universe to expand, and accelerating its expansion. while Dark Matter is what holding galaxies together, including the spiral outer arms rotating at the same speed as the inner arms. Our Milky Way wouldn’t exist if it were for Dark Matter.

Yes, science is aware the 95% exists, what it does not know as it cannot be objectively proven, is that there is cosmic intelligence at work in these spiritual realms. Religious practice such as meditation, prayer, devotion, etc., is the subjective method of realizing the divine reality of these spiritual realms.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Is there a point to this speculation about a concept that you don't understand but seems to you to confirm with some idea of yours?