Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[gnostic]

Science, in itself, does not rule out that which cannot be physically observed.
..but yes, naturalism is an extreme viewpoint, that hides behind the 'scientific method', in as much
as it denies the existence of other than this universe.

Thanks for saying that.

Because if what you say is true, then the Natural Philosophy during the Golden Age of Islam, from 768 to 1258 CE, are extreme viewpoints too, because all the “observations” and “discoveries” made by Muslim natural philosophers (eg Ibn al-Haytham, Abu'l-Barakāt, etc) would be considered unscientific and worthless.

if you are going to shoot down Naturalism, then you would be also shooting down Muslim naturalists’ contributions to sciences.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..if you are going to shoot down Naturalism, then you would be also shooting down Muslim naturalists’ contributions to sciences.

No .. I'm not 'shooting down' the scientific method.
I am saying that it is an extremist position to reject all forms of evidence,
other than physical observations in this universe.

i.e. there is more to learn than the contents of science books

Of course, that is not to say that science books aren't a good source of knowledge.
They are .. but so are many other academic disciplines.

 

[Pogo]

AS I point out to Polymath above, it is the direction north, not movement. What is the North Star? Is the North Star always north?

The first paragraph of your link should be enough to explain to you that while colloquially we use the term in regards to a star called Polaris, it is only because in this recent part of history that it happens to correspond to the actual concept of north on a sphere as perceived by ancient humans. Your massive lack of understanding of mathematics and geometry which have been driving forces in the advancement of mankind such that you can navel gaze as you do is just embarrassing. Finding a popular website that you think agrees with you even when it does not is just an example of your hubris that you somehow know better.

The North Star, or Polaris, is a very special star that sits almost directly at the Earth’s North celestial pole. It’s the only bright motionless star in the sky. It’s a more consistent navigational tool than a magnetic compass. But today's North Star won't stay still forever. Why is that? In this article, you'll discover why and learn more about the modern North Star.

 

[Pogo]

No .. I'm not 'shooting down' the scientific method.
I am saying that it is an extremist position to reject all forms of evidence,
other than physical observations in this universe.

i.e. there is more to learn than the contents of science books

Of course, that is not to say that science books aren't a good source of knowledge.
They are .. but so are many other academic disciplines.

And again, we are more than willing to listen when you come up with something that we can observe and reproduce.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And again, we are more than willing to listen when you come up with something that we can observe and reproduce.

I don't believe that the "we" you refer to is willing to listen .. you merely hide
behind your 'materialistic', 'rational', 'critical thinking' philosophy, and claim
to be justified in doing so.

If you are interested, you can find the information for yourself from the likes
of wikipedia, or if you are wealthy, text books etc.

..but you prefer to reject it .. your choice.

 

[Pogo]

I don't believe that the "we" you refer to is willing to listen .. you merely hide
behind your 'materialistic', 'rational', 'critical thinking' philosophy, and claim
to be justified in doing so.

If you are interested, you can find the information for yourself from the likes
of wikipedia, or if you are wealthy, text books etc.

..but you prefer to reject it .. your choice.

What information? If there is alternative science there and there is, it is being studied, but you have not presented any, only vague ideas that there is something out there.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The first paragraph of your link should be enough to explain to you that while colloquially we use the term in regards to a star called Polaris, it is only because in this recent part of history that it happens to correspond to the actual concept of north on a sphere as perceived by ancient humans. Your massive lack of understanding of mathematics and geometry which have been driving forces in the advancement of mankind such that you can navel gaze as you do is just embarrassing. Finding a popular website that you think agrees with you even when it does not is just an example of your hubris that you somehow know better.

The North Star, or Polaris, is a very special star that sits almost directly at the Earth’s North celestial pole. It’s the only bright motionless star in the sky. It’s a more consistent navigational tool than a magnetic compass. But today's North Star won't stay still forever. Why is that? In this article, you'll discover why and learn more about the modern North Star.

You are obfuscating, all language is conceptual, concepts are not real, the real is on the other side, the concepts only represent reality, they are not it. The reader must, after reading a statement, imagine the reality it is meant to convey. Pedantry can be petty. The astronomical article headline reads "Is the North Star always north?". What is the North Star? Is the North Star always north?

Do you get that 'north' implies the north direction extending beyond the north pole to the area where the North Star lies?
Analogy aside, in any event, there is a past direction in time that extends to before the theoretical BB,, you can't just claim it stops at the BB without solid direct evidence. Remember, conceptualization represents reality, it is not real in itself.

 

[Sargonski]

The universe is eternal, but cyclical. BB it is born. It lives. Big Crunch it dies and BB born anew.

except there are many different BBs many different universes - ebbing and flowing in time-- within the cosmic goo ..

So what else can we say about the universe .. in addition to that it is eternal ? .. " I think therefor I am" .. and that is about it .. that one can say one knows for certain ..

One day - a certain configuration of matter and energy .. opened its eyes .. and realized that it existed .. .. and just as the universe is eternal - on the basis of it existing at all - so is the Soul .. whose existence is eternal .. simply because it exists (The Soul being defined as the "I AM" ) so for example .. Abortion up until ~22 weeks would not be killing a human because it has not yet recived a Soul .. the fleshy abode not having the ability to capacitate the soul .. until the wiring of the Brain is complete .. at which time .. is like a light is switched on .. whole brain lights up like an xmas tree .. quite measurable on the EEG .. kabooom .. someone is home and the lights are on.

The "I AM" that is YOU -- right now - is eternal .. just like the Universe. One day .. the same configuration of matter and energy will open its eyes .. and will be you.

 

[Pogo]

You are obfuscating, all language is conceptual, concepts are not real, the real is on the other side, the concepts only represent reality, they are not it. The reader must, after reading a statement, imagine the reality it is meant to convey. Pedantry can be petty. The astronomical article headline reads "Is the North Star always north?". What is the North Star? Is the North Star always north?

Do you get that 'north' implies the north direction extending beyond the north pole to the area where the North Star lies?
Analogy aside, in any event, there is a past direction in time that extends to before the theoretical BB,, you can't just claim it stops at the BB without solid direct evidence. Remember, conceptualization represents reality, it is not real in itself.

No, the point was that we have grown up to see polaris as the north star, in celestial reality, it is just the one that happens to be there now and won't be in a few thousand years let alone on any timescale relative to the universe itself. That we have as humans associated it with what we call North is both temporary and mathematically incorrect.
Using colloquial understandings is leading you to all manner of false assumptions about the known universe and extrapolating from there is just leading you into meaningless weeds.

Add to that your conviction that you have achieved some higher state and I will ask for Green Godess on today's conceptual salad.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, the point was that we have grown up to see polaris as the north star, in celestial reality, it is just the one that happens to be there now and won't be in a few thousand years let alone on any timescale relative to the universe itself. That we have as humans associated it with what we call North is both temporary and mathematically incorrect.
Using colloquial understandings is leading you to all manner of false assumptions about the known universe and extrapolating from there is just leading you into meaningless weeds.

Add to that your conviction that you have achieved some higher state and I will ask for Green Godess on today's conceptual salad.

Mathematics is conceptual, it is a representation of reality, I don't deal in cerebral popcorn, I deal in the reality represented by cerebral popcorn.

Absolute existence exists, it does nothing else, it had no beginning and has no ending, it can't be stopped existing because of mathematics, beliefs, witchcraft, etc., get over it. If there was a BB, which I doubt, it happened in the one indivisible eternal infinite multiverse.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course..


We learn by experience .. not just science books.

Experience: testing our ideas to see if they work. if we go slightly beyond that and *try* to make them fail, we are doing science.

 

[Polymath257]

AS I point out to Polymath above, it is the direction north, not movement. What is the North Star? Is the North Star always north?

A direction is a vector. The vector for 'north' is a tangent vector to the sphere. No such tangent vector exists at the North Pole. There is no direction 'north' when at the North Pole.

 

[Polymath257]

No .. I'm not 'shooting down' the scientific method.
I am saying that it is an extremist position to reject all forms of evidence,
other than physical observations in this universe.

What other forms of evidence do you propose?

i.e. there is more to learn than the contents of science books

of course there is! Morality isn't determined by science. Aesthetics is not determined by science. The difference is that those are not forms of *knowledge*, but rather of shared opinions. The difference is testability.

Of course, that is not to say that science books aren't a good source of knowledge.
They are .. but so are many other academic disciplines.

Such as?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A direction is a vector. The vector for 'north' is a tangent vector to the sphere. No such tangent vector exists at the North Pole. There is no direction 'north' when at the North Pole.

Obfuscation seems to be your failing, The astronomical article headline reads "Is the North Star always north?". What is the North Star? Is the North Star always north? Do you get that 'north' in the article headline implies the north direction extending beyond the north pole to the area where the North Star lies?

Besides the analogy fail, the actual 'no before the BB' is also a fail, absolute existence exists, it does nothing else, it had no beginning and has no ending, it can't be stopped existing because of science's unproven beliefs, If there was a BB, which I doubt, it happened in the one indivisible eternal infinite multiverse.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would an all loving God that is going to punish people immorally forever hide from them? That your god is a world champion of hide and seek tells us that he is not good if he exists. Your version of God is extremely self contradictory. That is how we know that your version of God can not exist.

And why are you trying to shift the burden of proof? It is the burden of proof of believers to show that their god exists. Even your own holy book tells you that.

While some might misinterpret scripture, let me ask you this question: is death a punishment? (would you say it is?)

 

[YoursTrue]

What makes you think there was a cause at all?

You think maybe there was not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

While some might misinterpret scripture, let me ask you this question: is death a punishment? (would you say it is?)

No, death is and always has been part of life. That does not mean the people cannot judge the Genesis myth and see if God was evil in his actions or not in that story. Do you understand that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obfuscation seems to be your failing, The astronomical article headline reads "Is the North Star always north?". What is the North Star? Is the North Star always north? Do you get that 'north' in the article headline implies the north direction extending beyond the north pole to the area where the North Star lies?

Besides the analogy fail, the actual 'no before the BB' is also a fail, absolute existence exists, it does nothing else, it had no beginning and has no ending, it can't be stopped existing because of science's unproven beliefs, If there was a BB, which I doubt, it happened in the one indivisible eternal infinite multiverse.

No, there was no obfuscation on his part. And no, the North Star is not always north. It is very close to True North, but it is not exactly at True North. That means there is a part of the world where following the North Star would take you away from the North Pole.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You think maybe there was not?

It is a bad habit to dodge reasonable questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, death is and always has been part of life. That does not mean the people cannot judge the Genesis myth and see if God was evil in his actions or not in that story. Do you understand that?

No.