Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

No, what you have are merely claims of the effects of the BB.

What exists is what exists, if anything can be added to it or taken away from it, please provide direct proof, otherwise it is a mere claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, what you have are merely claims of the effects of the BB.

What exists is what exists, if anything can be added to it or taken away from it, please provide direct proof, otherwise it is a mere claim.

The present is the key to the past and it can refute errant beliefs. Such as yours. The Big Bang could be incorrect, (well not really, specific models of it are probably incomplete and therefore wrong, but its observation has been confirmed as much as gravity has been.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Conceptualizations, be it words or mathematics, cannot provide direct proof.

Actual existence itself is the proof of existence, not theories, mathematics, conceptualizations.

Existence is reality, reality is existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The present is the key to the past and it can refute errant beliefs. Such as yours. The Big Bang could be incorrect, (well not really, specific models of it are probably incomplete and therefore wrong, but its observation has been confirmed as much as gravity has been.

The present is all there is, time as a concept is merely the present continuing to be present. Changes in the present continues forever.

Sure, we can learn from the past, but the learning is only ever in the now, we can make changes to alter the future, but the changes are always in the now.

I live in an eternal universe in the here and now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The present is all there is, time as a concept is merely the present continuing to be present. Changes in the present continues forever.

Sure, we can learn from the past, but the learning is only ever in the now, we can make changes to alter the future, but the changes are always in the now.

I live in an eternal universe in the here and now.

Yum! Word salad.

 

[Pogo]

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

"And convinced himself that black is white and was killed on the next zebra crossing."
Douglas Adams.

 

[gnostic]

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.

You are still waffling, still evading, and making excuses, and you still cannot support your belief/claim.

What @Subduction Zone said is true, you are using circular reasoning, and that’s logical fallacy, not logic.

You have claimed to have proof, but not once have you ever presented any equation to prove that the universe is eternal.

Sciences require evidence or experiments and certainly require data, to verify whatever model to be scientifically valid, as evidence or experiments are the only way to test a theory or a hypothesis. But the facts are, there are no evidence and no data, YET, to justify your claims regarding to the universe.

Lastly, I have never claimed that the Universe to be not eternal, I simply don’t know, because as I said above, there are not enough evidence & data to say it is eternal.

What we do know at present, judging by JWST’s discoveries, the oldest galaxies is about 290 million years after the Big Bang, so that would mean JADES-GS-z14-0 is at least 13.508 billion years old. JWST may in the future may discover more older galaxies, but not at present, and if they don’t, then logically, galaxies are themselves, “not eternal”.

Do you see there, Ben?

I am basing my logic about galaxies not being eternal, on the data from James Webb Space Telescope, hence not using circular reasoning, like the way you have been doing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are still waffling, still evading, and making excuses, and you still cannot support your belief/claim.

What @Subduction Zone said is true, you are using circular reasoning, and that’s logical fallacy, not logic.

You have claimed to have proof, but not once have you ever presented any equation to prove that the universe is eternal.

Sciences require evidence or experiments and certainly require data, to verify whatever model to be scientifically valid, as evidence or experiments are the only way to test a theory or a hypothesis. But the facts are, there are no evidence and no data, YET, to justify your claims regarding to the universe.

Lastly, I have never claimed that the Universe to be not eternal, I simply don’t know, because as I said above, there are not enough evidence & data to say it is eternal.

What we do know at present, judging by JWST’s discoveries, the oldest galaxies is about 290 million years after the Big Bang, so that would mean JADES-GS-z14-0 is at least 13.508 billion years old. JWST may in the future may discover more older galaxies, but not at present, and if they don’t, then logically, galaxies are themselves, “not eternal”.

Do you see there, Ben?

I am basing my logic about galaxies not being eternal, on the data from James Webb Space Telescope, hence not using circular reasoning, like the way you have been doing.

Good to learn that you have an open mind wrt an eternal universe dear gnostic. Science is ongoing, and still relatively young, so naturally new discoveries will continue to happen to provide an ever clearer understanding of the universe.

Absolutely galaxies are not eternal, all created forms, no matter the size, will eventually decay and be recycled. Only the underlying universal essence itself from which everything is created is eternal.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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?

1. If you talk about God, you have to prove that such an entity exists.
2. If you talk about eternal universe, then you have to give the reason as to why it is so?
Evidence first, talk later.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Only the underlying universal essence itself from which everything is created is eternal.

Any reason to believe that it is the Christian God or his son?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Any reason to believe that it is the Christian God or his son?

I do not get the connection?

 

[ratiocinator]

You mean that you don't.

That's why I said "that I can see".

I see plenty of reason to believe in non-physical phenomena.

We were talking specifically about consciousness without brains. Not entirely sure what you mean by "non-physical phenomena" more generally.

 

[ratiocinator]

Speed of light is not direct evidence...

I didn't say the speed of light itself was direct evidence. The speed of light means that when we look a long way off, we are also looking back in time, so we can directly see that the universe was different in the past.

...science wrt BB is conceptual.

Every theory is 'conceptual' but all theories (in the scientific sense of the word) have good, objective evidence. The BB is not an exception.

 

[ratiocinator]

..there is no direct evidence of BB

Untrue.

There is direct evidence, the universe exists, period.

That is not evidence of an eternal universe.

Why would you even imagine it would have a beginning, we are not dealing with created things.

Evidence.

Your strategy appears to be to just contradict everybody who gives you evidence and to simply assert that you know the universe is eternal. What's the point? All you have is blind faith.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I didn't say the speed of light itself was direct evidence. The speed of light means that when we look a long way off, we are also looking back in time, so we can directly see that the universe was different in the past.


Every theory is 'conceptual' but all theories (in the scientific sense of the word) have good, objective evidence. The BB is not an exception.

There are scientists who see TL where others see Doppler, I'm with TL, despite your belief to the contrary. Science is still in its relative infancy wrt planet Earth's humanity.

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

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Untrue.


That is not evidence of an eternal universe.


Evidence.

Your strategy appears to be to just contradict everybody who gives you evidence and to simply assert that you know the universe is eternal. What's the point? All you have is blind faith.

The universe exists, and continues to exist, if you think it is temporary, prove it!

There are claims, conceptual theories are just that, claims, not direct evidence

 

[ratiocinator]

There are scientists who see TL where others see Doppler...

And the red-shift is only a small part of the evidence for the BB. As I (and the links I gave earlier) said, and you ignored, we can see into the universe's past simply by looking at objects that are very far away. When we do that we can see significant differences from today.

We have direct observational evidence that the universe is not in an unchanging steady state.

 

[ratiocinator]

The universe exists, and continues to exist, if you think it is temporary, prove it!

Demands for proof are absurd. What we have is lots of evidence that the universe as we see it today emerged from a hot dense state some 13.5 billion years ago. Whether time is finite in the past is not a question we can yet answer. What we do know (from direct evidence) is that time is not the intuitive/Newtonian unchanging background that you appear to want it to be, so we can't rule out that it had a start.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And the red-shift is only a small part of the evidence for the BB. As I (and the links I gave earlier) said, and you ignored, we can see into the universe's past simply by looking at objects that are very far away. When we do that we can see significant differences from today.

We have direct observational evidence that the universe is not in an unchanging steady state.

The SS universe does not mean that infinite space has the same distribution pattern throughout as the space seen from Earth with a medium size telescope.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Demands for proof are absurd. What we have is lots of evidence that the universe as we see it today emerged from a hot dense state some 13.5 billion years ago. Whether time is finite in the past is not a question we can yet answer. What we do know (from direct evidence) is that time is not the intuitive/Newtonian unchanging background that you appear to want it to be, so we can't rule out that it had a start.

Fine, you may take the evidence provided as solid, I have doubts, Same for time, time is not an entity, of course if you use a proxy measurement like atomic clocks, quartz X'tal clocks (which are only timing themselves), of course they are affected by gravity, acceleration, speed, etc.. But that's not time changing, it is the proxy 'time' measurement mechanism.