Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

Logic can be speculation, unless the logic is presented in mathematical form.

Logic are not evidence, Ben.

As I mentioned before, science required all theories to be rigorously tested, and the only tests accepted are experiments & evidence, something that can be detected, quantified, measured, etc, hence tests required observations.

While logic is a tool that can be used, like chemical formulas of some chemical reactions or mathematical equations, these logic doesn’t make it true, scientifically.

Logic, like formulas or equations, must be subjected to testing, just like testing any explanation or testing any prediction. The test can verify or refute logic.

Logic are not infallible or inerrant, Ben, because all logic are of human constructs, and humans can err, and if humans can be wrong, so can any logic be wrong.

Don’t be offended, ben, I don’t trust your logic. If you cannot test logic, then to me your logic is merely personal opinion.

Mathematical form is conceptual dear gnostic, there is no direct evidence of BB

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are no direct evidence that the universe is eternal.

As to proof, you haven’t shown any.

if you understand what PROOF is, the ways scientists and mathematicians understand ”proof”, then ”proof” is a logical statement or logical model, often expressed as equation or a set of equations.

When anyone say “prove” or “disprove“, then that would means to a mathematician or a scientist, solving the equation, or do partial differentiation or do truth table (eg using the operators AND, OR, NAND, NOR, etc), etc.

To give some examples as to what proofs mean in science, particularly in physics:

​

Ohm’s Law is V = I R that equation is proof, not evidence​

​

Newton‘s law for force is F = m a, that would be a proof for force.​

​

Here is Einstein’s proof for mass-energy equivalence (used in Special Relativity): E = m c^2​

So if you had any proof, then should be able to show mathematical equations that the universe is eternal. But since this thread started, you have not shown a single equation.

You keep saying you have proof, then do you either the equation or formula?

If you don’t, then stop claiming you have them.



Proofs (eg equations) are theoretical.

here, you have demonstrated once again, you don’t even know what proof is.

if you want to prove or disprove something, then that would be “theoretical”.

you are utterly clueless, using wrong words, only demonstrated how little understand science.

There is direct evidence, the universe exists, period. Why would you even imagine it would have a beginning, we are not dealing with created things.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That’s just speculation and assumption.

The universe is eternal, the proof is that it exists and not one iota can be added or removed, If you think it has a beginning, then prove it is a direct way, not with conceptual mathematical claims and hypothesis.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The universe is eternal, the proof is that it exists and not one iota can be added or removed..

Einstein showed us otherwise.

The earth could in the future collide with another planet, and not one of us might
be left to speculate.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Einstein showed us otherwise.

The earth could in the future collide with another planet, and not one of us might
be left to speculate.

Einstein didn't know where his awareness came from.

Yes, only material ego selves speculate, the immortal soul has pure awareness.

 

[gnostic]

Mathematical form is conceptual

mathematical form is a logical model, whether it is conceptual or not, Ben.

That’s what “proofs” are, when proofs are used in any theory or any hypothesis…and they usually represented in the forms of equations with numbers, variables, constants, coefficients, metric, etc.
You keep claiming that you have proofs or that you are able to prove that the universe is eternal. If so, then where are your proofs? Where are your equations that prove the universe is eternal?

You don’t have them, do you?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the immortal soul has pure awareness.

Careful .. you might start to think that you are Jesus, Moses or something.

We have beliefs, and yes, we have been given a conscience, and intelligence to use.

 

[Pogo]

Einstein didn't know where his awareness came from.

Yes, only material ego selves speculate, the immortal soul has pure awareness.

Talk about conceptual, this exists only in your head without physically observable evidence.
" immortal soul has pure awareness."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

mathematical form is a logical model, whether it is conceptual or not, Ben.

That’s what “proofs” are, when proofs are used in any theory or any hypothesis…and they usually represented in the forms of equations with numbers, variables, constants, coefficients, metric, etc.
You keep claiming that you have proofs or that you are able to prove that the universe is eternal. If so, then where are your proofs? Where are your equations that prove the universe is eternal?

You don’t have them, do you?

The proof of eternal universe is the eternal universe, it is a given, the proof of the pudding. Who is making the absurd claim it had a beginning without any direct proof? The onus is on those people who make the claim to prove it unambiguously.

Any and all conceptualization about a beginning is not direct evidence. To be able to add something to the existing universe or take something away from it, would be direct evidence.

ps. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams depend upon his not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Careful .. you might start to think that you are Jesus, Moses or something.

We have beliefs, and yes, we have been given a conscience, and intelligence to use.

Oh, you are not familiar with the concept of soul? It is not the ego self, one is mortal and the other immortal.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Talk about conceptual, this exists only in your head without physically observable evidence.
" immortal soul has pure awareness."

You are an atheist, you are presently unaware of soul. So simple!

 

[Pogo]

The proof of eternal universe is the eternal universe, it is a given, the proof of the pudding. Who is making the absurd claim it had a beginning without any direct proof? The onus is on those people who make the claim to prove it unambiguously.

Any and all conceptualization about a beginning is not direct evidence. To be able to add something to the existing universe or take something away from it, would be direct evidence.

ps. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams depend upon his not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair.

No that is assuming your conclusion which is a fallacy not a proof.
Look it up.

BTW assuming your conclusion and fallacy are concepts you should recognize immediately.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No that is assuming your conclusion which is a fallacy not a proof.
Look it up.

BTW assuming your conclusion and fallacy are concepts you should recognize immediately.

The truth is that the conception of truth is not truth, nevertheless this conception of truth that the conception of truth is not truth, is the truth.

So I am using conceptual language to convey to you that conceptual BB theories are not truth, however the reality represented by the concept of eternal universe is real, no conceptual mathematical theories are required, it just exists, and it just continues to exist.

ps. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams/beliefs depend upon his not understanding it."
- inspired by Upton Sinclair

 

[gnostic]

There is direct evidence, the universe exists, period.

Ah, Universe existing, don’t in any way justify the universe is eternal.

There are no direct evidence whatsoever that the universe is eternal, and what evidence & data that scientists do have (did have) from observatories, optical or radio, terrestrial or in space, are not enough to say the universe is eternal.

The BB theory also explain the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, not just the earliest light detected, which is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with WMAP & the Planck that were measured to 378,000 years after the Big Bang, but also the oldest galaxies so far that can be detected by the JWST (2024) is JADES-GS-z14-0 with redshift of 14.6, so that is calculated to be about 290 million years after the Big Bang.

The previous record was JADES-GS-z13-0, detected by JWST in 2022, with redshift of 13.2, so about 320 million years after the Big Bang. JWST broke all of the HST’s (the Hubble) discoveries.

So basically the galaxies are themselves, not eternal.

JWST’s discoveries don’t refute the Big Bang theory, but it does make them revised when the Cosmic Dark Age ended, and when Reionization began. Reionization is the Big Bang theory,’s timeline as to when the clouds of hydrogen began to heat up and ionized, and that would trigger the stellar formation of the earliest generation of very massive stars - Population 3 stars - stars that began with only hydrogen and helium, as no carbon, nitrogen & oxygen would exist yet.

So far, no Population 3 stars have been observed, only Population 2 & Population 1 stars have been observed; our Sun is Population 1 Star, as it has some trace evidence of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and some other heavier elements. One of the parameters of JWST mission, is to detect one of these Population 3 stars, but it has detected any.

 

[gnostic]

The proof of eternal universe is the eternal universe

You are evading the questions and requests to present your proofs.

In science, proof = equation.

Your proof isn’t a proof, it is merely you, using circular reasoning, and your belief, is nothing more than confirmation bias.

You have no proof, Ben. You never did, all you are doing, is waffling.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ah, Universe existing, don’t in any way justify the universe is eternal.

There are no direct evidence whatsoever that the universe is eternal, and what evidence & data that scientists do have (did have) from observatories, optical or radio, terrestrial or in space, are not enough to say the universe is eternal.

The BB theory also explain the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, not just the earliest light detected, which is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with WMAP & the Planck that were measured to 378,000 years after the Big Bang, but also the oldest galaxies so far that can be detected by the JWST (2024) is JADES-GS-z14-0 with redshift of 14.6, so that is calculated to be about 290 million years after the Big Bang.

The previous record was JADES-GS-z13-0, detected by JWST in 2022, with redshift of 13.2, so about 320 million years after the Big Bang. JWST broke all of the HST’s (the Hubble) discoveries.

So basically the galaxies are themselves, not eternal.

JWST’s discoveries don’t refute the Big Bang theory, but it does make them revised when the Cosmic Dark Age ended, and when Reionization began. Reionization is the Big Bang theory,’s timeline as to when the clouds of hydrogen began to heat up and ionized, and that would trigger the stellar formation of the earliest generation of very massive stars - Population 3 stars - stars that began with only hydrogen and helium, as no carbon, nitrogen & oxygen would exist yet.

So far, no Population 3 stars have been observed, only Population 2 & Population 1 stars have been observed; our Sun is Population 1 Star, as it has some trace evidence of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and some other heavier elements. One of the parameters of JWST mission, is to detect one of these Population 3 stars, but it has detected any.

You do not need evidence to prove the eternal universe is eternal, if it were not eternal, you would be able to prove it did not always exist, but there is no such proof.

Conceptualization that the universe is not eternal is not proof, the fact is that the universe is eternal and cannot be made to cease existing. Please understand that reality is forever on the other side of concepts, it is not reality.

ps. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams/beliefs depend upon his not understanding it."
- inspired by Upton Sinclair

 

[Subduction Zone]

The proof of eternal universe is the eternal universe, it is a given, the proof of the pudding. Who is making the absurd claim it had a beginning without any direct proof? The onus is on those people who make the claim to prove it unambiguously.

Any and all conceptualization about a beginning is not direct evidence. To be able to add something to the existing universe or take something away from it, would be direct evidence.

ps. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams depend upon his not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair.

Nope, now you are just using circular logic at best. And the burden of proof is upon the person making a positive claim. Please try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do not need evidence to prove the eternal universe is eternal, if it were not eternal, you would be able to prove it did not always exist, but there is no such proof.

Conceptualization that the universe is not eternal is not proof, the fact is that the universe is eternal and cannot be made to cease existing. Please understand that reality is forever on the other side of concepts, it is not reality.

ps. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams/beliefs depend upon his not understanding it."
- inspired by Upton Sinclair

And once again a lame attempt to shift the burden of proof. I do believe the only claim that has been made for sure is that we do not know if it is eternal or not. You still do not understand how it could be eternal and still have a beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nope, now you are just using circular logic at best. And the burden of proof is upon the person making a positive claim. Please try again.

The universe exists, and continues to exist, I don't have to prove that.

For those who claim the BB, they need to prove it directly and can't, just conceptualizations.

ps. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams/beliefs depend upon his not understanding it."
- inspired by Upton Sinclair

 

[Subduction Zone]

The universe exists, and continues to exist, I don't have to prove that.

For those who claim the BB, they need to prove it directly and can't, just conceptualizations.

ps. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams/beliefs depend upon his not understanding it."
- inspired by Upton Sinclair

We both agree that the universe exists and continues to exist. That does not help you.

And we have observed the effects of the Big Bang. You only have an unsupported claim that goes against existing evidence. That tells us that you are wrong.