Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Esteban X]

Maybe, but still, spirit does not need space to exist and does not need a continuation of that space to continue to exist.

A perfect description of something that does not exist.

 

[gnostic]

People can't accept their own ignorance. We see what we believe so we believe that we know everything. We can see no gaps in our vision so we must know everything.

You are projecting.

That goes for the 40,000-year-old “Ancient Language” that you cannot read, and the 40,000-year-old Ancient Science that never existed, and the species of Homo sapiens (or the Nephilim, which sometimes you have called them) and Homo Omnisciensis that supposedly occurred in the mythological Tower of Babel event, the (herbivore) beavers building dam to farm & eat fishes, and so many other things you have made up that you believe in, and you believe to know everything.

 

[gnostic]

God sitting above the circle of the earth does not show the earth to be flat imo. However it does also not show the earth to be a sphere.

I would say that the problem is that Hebrew, afaik, has no word for "spherical".

Nonsense.

A circle is 2-dimension, not 3-dimension, as in sphere, cylinder or cone.

The Hebrew words for circle are ma'agál, מַעְגָּל, or khúg, חוּג, which means “circle” or “ring”. Isaiah 40:22, used khúg, not ma'agál.

The Hebrew words, sféra סְפֶרָה, which means “sphere”, and kadúr כדור, which means “orb”, “ball” or “sphere”. The adjective “spherical” is written as kadurí or כדורי.

khúg is circle or ring, not sphere like kadúr or sféra.

 

[McBell]

In each of these hypotheses, would the universe still exist in the absence of a being to experience it?

Yes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God does not require space and time to exist

Those are just words, and incongruent ones at that. To exist means to persist somewhere through a duration of time.

spirit does not need space to exist

More unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable words.

The Bible isn't meant to be a source for scientific knowledge.

Yes, it is - or was, until it was shown to be incorrect. The creation myth tries to do what science actually does - explain how the world came to be as we find it.

You are closed minded because you have convinced yourself that, in spiritual matters, anything you have no experience of is not worth considering.

The atheistic humanist is capable of a spiritual relationship with nature, which in my opinion is what a spiritual experience is, and which has nothing to do with imagined spirits. Many Abrahamists are not spiritual by that definition. They are not connected to our world. They live in it, but their attention is on an imagined world inhabited by imagined entities that they hope to experience in an imagined afterlife.

Furthermore, rejecting unfalsifiable claims is not closed-mindedness.

It’s fine that you have no interest in pursuing a spiritual awakening of your own

He's probably not looking at gods and religions for that.

Religious practice is for the more mature mind.

The most evolved minds have left religion. They have no need for it, and it does nothing for them.

The myth of the flat Earth, or the flat-Earth error, is a modern historical misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat.

He was referring to the Bible writers. They were flat earthers.

I have been trying to open your eyes to another possibility

No need. The critical thinker already accepts the possibility of any idea not shown to be impossible, but possibility is not enough.

 

[gnostic]

Dear gnostic, I know BB storyline is, it is nonsense, you have drank their cool aid. There is no outside the BB universe because the BB expansion is akin to the increased distance between the spots on a balloon surface being blown up, and you can't look outwards, only sideways model, c'mon.

You’d say such false thing.

A) No sciences are ”religion” or “cult”, Ben. Not the Big Bang theory, and not any other science or any other scientific field.​

Only religious people, particularly creationists & New Age syncretism, would resort this type of sophistry, equating any specific scientific theory as a cult, because for one reason or another, it doesn’t align to whatever they believe in. Although you don’t exactly fall into the same category of traditional “creationist”, you do use the same tactics as them, use the same fallacious arguments.​

​

B) While a scientific theory may currently be accepted “for now”, as “science” (not talking specifically about BB only, I am talking about scientific theory in general), every single ones of them, are only accepted provisionally.​

Any theory can be challenged, questioned, criticised, and if or when it happened - to be replaced. Meaning should a better alternative theory (in the future) that is supported rigorously with conclusive empirical evidence, then the current theory can be replaced.​

​

C) No theories, have answers to EVERYTHING. Not even the Big Bang theory. There are always something that remained unanswered, or problems unresolved…and that’s is true with the ΛCDM model.​

You seemed to be forgetting that every single models, have only being focused on the Observable Universe. It is only focused on so far with the discoveries of the Redshift & CMBR…plus right up to Planck Epoch, that happened prior to the CMBR, 377,000 years earlier. The reason they have done, is to describe how the four fundamental interactions and all particles might have formed. That’s always have been the scopes of the Big Bang theory. If you want to go beyond the Planck Epoch, then you should be looking at the Cyclical models or the Multiverse.​

​

​

Furthermore, I may currently accept the Big Bang theory, I am not being dogmatic about it, as I can and will accept any alternative theory. but the alternative cosmological model must not only be rigorously tested, with new experiments & empirical evidence & data, it must be also supported by old evidence & data.

That’s not being in a cult, I am not drinking any kool-aid, Ben. With the Big Bang theory, is no different from how I treat Newton’s theories on gravity and motion, as while they are still useful, I have accepted Einstein’s theories more, because Newtonian mechanics were incomplete & less accurate. I don’t just mean the mathematical equations, but also Einstein’s Relativity provide better explanations or descriptions about gravity.

Likewise, I am not mired in the 19th century electromagnetism of Faraday & Maxwell. It still relevant in many ways, today, but more accurate theory to electromagnetism is given in Quantum Electrodynamics. Why do yo think I did that? Because during the times of Michael Faraday & James Clerk Maxwell, they died before learning about the electrons, the role that this particle played in electromagnetic fields & waves, as well with the role they played in Particle Physics (eg the Standard Model).

You think I am being close-minded. That’s not true. I can accept and learn new things…but in the case with nature and Natural Sciences, I’ll only accept those that have been rigorously tested. And so far many of the alternative cosmological models (eg Cyclical Universe models, Multiverse, Brane Cosmology , etc) have fallen short, because there are little to no evidence & data to support these alternatives.

For instance, the Brane Cosmology, is based on theoretical Superstring Theory, but how do anyone accept Brane Cosmology WHEN Superstring Theory itself is still untestable and untested? Until scientists can test Superstring itself, the Brane Cosmology is useless.

And then with Cyclical Cosmology & Multiverse, they have their own problems with being untested, as we have currently have no technology (so far) to observe beyond our current Observable Universe. We cannot observe the previous universe, nor can we observe multiple universes. Both the Cyclical model & multiverse are only possible in mathematical equations.

You said before there are differences between concepts and reality. And these alternatives have been stuck on concepts.

I am willing to learn & understand any new or old alternative model on cosmology, but until any of these can be tested & verified empirically, I am sitting on the fence with these alternative models, for now.

i have listened to you, prattle on and on, about the universe being eternal, but that has not been tested, scientifically or mystically. So your version of cosmology is still on conceptual stage, not in reality.

What I am not sitting on the fence, currently, is the latest model to the Big Bang theory - the ΛCDM with the Cosmic Inflation, because this model currently covered the ground of being tested. But I can change my mind in the future, if and when such a better alternative comes up. It hasn’t happened yet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You’d say such false thing.

A) No sciences are ”religion” or “cult”, Ben. Not the Big Bang theory, and not any other science or any other scientific field.​

Only religious people, particularly creationists & New Age syncretism, would resort this type of sophistry, equating any specific scientific theory as a cult, because for one reason or another, it doesn’t align to whatever they believe in. Although you don’t exactly fall into the same category of traditional “creationist”, you do use the same tactics as them, use the same fallacious arguments.​

​

B) While a scientific theory may currently be accepted “for now”, as “science” (not talking specifically about BB only, I am talking about scientific theory in general), every single ones of them, are only accepted provisionally.​

Any theory can be challenged, questioned, criticised, and if or when it happened - to be replaced. Meaning should a better alternative theory (in the future) that is supported rigorously with conclusive empirical evidence, then the current theory can be replaced.​

​

C) No theories, have answers to EVERYTHING. Not even the Big Bang theory. There are always something that remained unanswered, or problems unresolved…and that’s is true with the ΛCDM model.​

You seemed to be forgetting that every single models, have only being focused on the Observable Universe. It is only focused on so far with the discoveries of the Redshift & CMBR…plus right up to Planck Epoch, that happened prior to the CMBR, 377,000 years earlier. The reason they have done, is to describe how the four fundamental interactions and all particles might have formed. That’s always have been the scopes of the Big Bang theory. If you want to go beyond the Planck Epoch, then you should be looking at the Cyclical models or the Multiverse.​

​

​

Furthermore, I may currently accept the Big Bang theory, I am not being dogmatic about it, as I can and will accept any alternative theory. but the alternative cosmological model must not only be rigorously tested, with new experiments & empirical evidence & data, it must be also supported by old evidence & data.

That’s not being in a cult, I am not drinking any kool-aid, Ben. With the Big Bang theory, is no different from how I treat Newton’s theories on gravity and motion, as while they are still useful, I have accepted Einstein’s theories more, because Newtonian mechanics were incomplete & less accurate. I don’t just mean the mathematical equations, but also Einstein’s Relativity provide better explanations or descriptions about gravity.

Likewise, I am not mired in the 19th century electromagnetism of Faraday & Maxwell. It still relevant in many ways, today, but more accurate theory to electromagnetism is given in Quantum Electrodynamics. Why do yo think I did that? Because during the times of Michael Faraday & James Clerk Maxwell, they died before learning about the electrons, the role that this particle played in electromagnetic fields & waves, as well with the role they played in Particle Physics (eg the Standard Model).

You think I am being close-minded. That’s not true. I can accept and learn new things…but in the case with nature and Natural Sciences, I’ll only accept those that have been rigorously tested. And so far many of the alternative cosmological models (eg Cyclical Universe models, Multiverse, Brane Cosmology , etc) have fallen short, because there are little to no evidence & data to support these alternatives.

For instance, the Brane Cosmology, is based on theoretical Superstring Theory, but how do anyone accept Brane Cosmology WHEN Superstring Theory itself is still untestable and untested. And then with Cyclical Cosmology & Multiverse, they have their own problems with being untested, as we have currently have no technology (so far) to observe beyond our current Observable Universe. We cannot observe the previous universe, nor can we observe multiple universes. Both the Cyclical model & multiverse are only possible in mathematical equations.

You said before there are differences between concepts and reality. And these alternatives have been stuck on concepts.

I am willing to learn & understand any new or old alternative model on cosmology, but until any of these can be tested & verified empirically, I am sitting on the fence with these alternative models, for now.

i have listened to you, prattle on and on, about the universe being eternal, but that has not been tested, scientifically or mystically. So your version of cosmology is still on conceptual stage, not in reality.

What I am not sitting on the fence, currently, is the latest model to the Big Bang theory - the ΛCDM with the Cosmic Inflation, because this model currently covered the ground of being tested. But I can change my mind in the future, if and when such a better alternative comes up. It hasn’t happened yet.

Thank you for your thoughtful post gnostic, I understand where you are coming from and will respect your position, not that I agree with all of it, but it is your genuine understanding at this time.

As to the mystical not being tested, it has but as you are well aware, the mystical is a subjective experience and so it not subject to objective evidence so far as I am aware. If and when it is, you will be the first I contact.

 

[gnostic]

Thank you for your thoughtful post gnostic, I understand where you are coming from and will respect your position, not that I agree with all of it, but it is your genuine understanding at this time.

As to the mystical not being tested, it has but as you are well aware, the mystical is a subjective experience and so it not subject to objective evidence so far as I am aware. If and when it is, you will be the first I contact.

Thank you.

I don’t mind if you follows certain religion or spirituality.

For me, I think of what you believe in, to be conceptual…while you may disagree. That’s your choice, but now you know mine.

i am not all science, and nothing but the science. I do have interests in subjective areas, particularly the creativity of arts & architecture, in literature and in music. And even with history, is more subjective than objective, because the historians/authors of those times, were largely writing from their own perspective about their own cultures.

And cultures of people, past and present, are largely subjective too.

While with science, particularly those that study nature, require to be objective, hence the testing, I have not given up the world of subjective perspectives and subjective experiences.

I don't see myself in the Scientism category, as @PureX would use, when anyone disagree with him on some subjects.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As to the mystical not being tested, it has but as you are well aware, the mystical is a subjective experience and so it not subject to objective evidence so far as I am aware. If and when it is, you will be the first I contact.

Subjective experiences can generate knowledge, by which I mean ideas that can be used to predict future outcomes. They are the results of the internals senses and report reproducible experiences like beautiful and tasty, or repulsive. Strawberries taste good to me and Brussels sprouts bad EVERY TIME I try them. This is subjective knowledge, but as objectively true for me as any other knowledge I have, just not necessarily true for you or anybody else.

Where I part ways with the faithful is in their interpretation of such experiences. I've had spiritual experiences just like they have and do, and once I explained them to myself in terms of the Holy Spirit, since they usually occurred in my first church at the hands of a joyful and charismatic preacher I encountered in my Army days. After discharge and a return to California, I tried a half dozen congregations, all pretty dead, and no more spiritual experiences in church, which is how I determined that my previous experiences were not what I thought they were, but rather, my own mental states improperly interpreted and attributed. This is how I decided that the religion was false and returned to atheism.

I have such experiences today looking at the night sky with understanding of what I am looking at and my connection to it, or with much music, but I don't call it a god anymore.

When a believer tells me that they have communed with God or have a personal relationship with their god, or know with certainty that a god exists, I don't accept those interpretations of their mental states. That's also how I view your comment about the mystical being tested.

So, a subjective experience can be pleasant or unpleasant and reproducibly so, and this constitute personal knowledge, but the interpretation of it might not be knowledge. If I say that my experiences of strawberries and Brussels sprouts - the tests - are due to my genetics and how my brain processes such experiences - the understanding of what they imply about reality - I am probably correct, but if I say that that is God speaking to me and instructing me which foods to eat and which to avoid, that's no longer experience of any kind, but rather, an interpretation of its significance, and it's likely wrong however certain I am otherwise.

*******

Within seconds of posting this, I saw the following on another thread, a great example of what I'm talking about. I have no reason to believe that either of them has experienced a god. They've had experiences, but I have no reason to believe that they haven't misunderstood their significance:

A: "We can talk about religion all you like. Nothing will make me doubt. Nothing you say, nothing you do, nothing anyone says or does will make me doubt that God is real and that He loves me. Which is actually pretty amazing."

B: "Same here. Nothing will make me doubt, especially after all I have been through which I survived, only by the Grace of God.
It is amazing that God loves me in spite of the way I feel about myself."

 

[Polymath257]

You are being evasive, we know that the surface of the balloon is expanding into air, what is the BB universe expanding into?

In the strictest sense, the universe is expanding *into the future*. More specifically, the four dimensional vector perpendicular to the expansion is directed into the future light cone.

In the analogy with the balloon, the radius of the balloon is analogous to *time* with the future being outward.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the strictest sense, the universe is expanding *into the future*. More specifically, the four dimensional vector perpendicular to the expansion is directed into the future light cone.

In the analogy with the balloon, the radius of the balloon is analogous to *time* with the future being outward.

@gnostic
Is there any observable evidence that the universe is in effect everything? Or is it inferred, but not observed?

 

[Polymath257]

No, how do we observe that there is no time and space before the "Bing Bang"? Or is it derived from the math in the thoery?

We don't. if General Relativity is wrong in the very early universe (which it is likely to be), then it might be *possible* to extend the time dimension past a phase transition we currently call the Big Bang. The problem is that, of the several possible theories of quantum gravity (which is what is required for the very early universe), the answers given by those theories differ on this point. So we don't know and won't know until we have more evidence to select which theory is more likely to be correct.

 

[Polymath257]

I am focused on the surface because that is where the BB theory falls apart! Fine, I understand that as expansion takes place, the space between the dots get larger, but what about the dots on the surface of the sphere, what is on the outside of them. Facing inwards, there is increased space, facing the dots of the same radius, the space get larger on the inside, but nothing exists on their outer side, how does that work?

Inside is the past; outside is the future. Time is represented by the radius.

 

[Polymath257]

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.”

More specifically, the three dimensional submanifold of space is the boundary between the past and the future. Spacetime is a four dimensional manifold.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And this is wrong.

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.

Not 'expanding into' such a field. The field is the lowest energy state of a vacuum (i.e, of space) and space is expanding.

 

[Polymath257]

For heaven's sake, math is conceptual!

What does that even mean? That we use math to model concepts? Sure. That math is an abstract subject? Sure. beyond that? I have no idea.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe. But let’s be clear; use of the label “dark” in this context is a way of saying “we don’t know”. And the scale of what we don’t know is astronomical.

Actually, not. The 'dark' is a way of saying 'it interacts at most weakly with electromagnetic radiation'.

 

[Polymath257]

@gnostic
Here you go. Polymath257 is back.

Probably not for long. I have life issues over here.

 

[Polymath257]

But space does exist, and continues to exist, there is no evidence that space ever did not exist, nor that it could ever be made to non-exist. Physical creations otoh did not always exist, Stars, Galaxies, etc., they have finite life times.

if General Relativity is to be believed, there simply was no '50 billion years ago'. In that sense, there was no 'space' (or time).

Have you ever considered that the Genesis story of creation pertains to this star system, ie., our Sun and Planets? For certainly they were created, but they were created in already existing larger Milky Way Galaxy? That actually is my understanding, for our Sun and Earth was not created at the same as the rest of the Galaxy. And our Galaxy was not created at the same time as all other Galaxies. And so on....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Probably not for long. I have life issues over here.

Good luck, take care.