Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[simsi]

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?

I'm new here. I suppose you're assuming the universe didn't always exist, so my comments may not be of interest. The universe has always existed. Since you've introduced God into the question, I think you're right to find it problematic about a starting point for the creation, and the problem doesn't go away and gets even more troublesome if one sees that time itself may only have appeared with creation, which is why we say God is atemporal.

Since God has entered the question, I came across this which made me think: that to imagine creation starting in some way is to imagine a God without creation somehow let's say 'before' it happened. And so we have a creator without a creation, and so what does God even mean like the sun without its characteristic light. Is the Creator the Creator without its creation?

This destroys other characteristic qualities. If God were without its creation, then we're saying a change happened in God when it created, in fact when it became Creator. So now God is no longer changeless or eternally the same but subject to change like created things. You can see all sorts of problems from violating the essential names or qualities of God, but this post is probably too long now, cheers.

 

[simsi]

Time and space are perceived characteristics of the universe we temporarily inhabit; beyond it there may be no before, no after, and no always. No point in time from which it all began. Indeed, even in our current paradigm, there is no fixed point in time, no universal Now.

Time and space are perceived characteristics of the universe we temporarily inhabit; beyond it there may be no before, no after, and no always. No point in time from which it all began. Indeed, even in our current paradigm, there is no fixed point in time, no universal Now.

I agree. I think space and time are actual, functional on matter, though I don't see it clearly yet. Physics seems to support my notion but my grasp of Physics is nowhere. Any ideas?

 

[simsi]

Scripture is not conclusive, depending upon whose scripture you use, about whether the universe didn't always exist; so your question could be moot.

As for God: God is outside time and therefore could not have always existed, since 'Always' is a time word. Instead time exists inside of God, God being transcendent.

The Baha'i scriptures are conclusive, although I agree so far as most pure scriptures (as opposed to religious philosophies that may have followed) like the Bible and Koran go, they're not. Baha'i scriptures state that creation including the physical universe is eternal.

 

[simsi]

I made no implication that any god did anything. I was asking if the universe would still exist in the absence of an experiencer.

Always an interesting question. Have you read Berkeley? He went so far as to say that to be is to be perceived, but due to solid reasons his experiencer is God. I've always felt he has something valuable to say but haven't spent the time beyond a reading of just one major work.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Baha'i scriptures are conclusive, although I agree so far as most pure scriptures (as opposed to religious philosophies that may have followed) like the Bible and Koran go, they're not. Baha'i scriptures state that creation including the physical universe is eternal.

What do you (as a Baha'i) think of Wolfram's idea of the hypergraph? Its not a religious idea but seems to fit into certain religious positions. He tries to figure out a universal theory of physics that models the universe mathematically. Within the hypergraphs are the construct of time and space which appear to have a beginning though they exist inside the (eternal I add) hypergraphs. Where would God be? Outside the hypergraphs? Would the hypergraphs be inside God? I am curious what you'd think about it as a Baha'i.

Below is an online article about it:
"https://www.sciencenews.org/article/stephen-wolfram-hypergraph-project-fundamental-theory-physics"

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm new here. I suppose you're assuming the universe didn't always exist, so my comments may not be of interest. The universe has always existed. Since you've introduced God into the question, I think you're right to find it problematic about a starting point for the creation, and the problem doesn't go away and gets even more troublesome if one sees that time itself may only have appeared with creation, which is why we say God is atemporal.

Since God has entered the question, I came across this which made me think: that to imagine creation starting in some way is to imagine a God without creation somehow let's say 'before' it happened. And so we have a creator without a creation, and so what does God even mean like the sun without its characteristic light. Is the Creator the Creator without its creation?

This destroys other characteristic qualities. If God were without its creation, then we're saying a change happened in God when it created, in fact when it became Creator. So now God is no longer changeless or eternally the same but subject to change like created things. You can see all sorts of problems from violating the essential names or qualities of God, but this post is probably too long now, cheers.

Have you ever considered that the reality represented by the concept of God as an indivisible one, and it is only human conception that divides the one God into two aspects, the creator aspect, and the created aspect. Now all created things have beginnings and endings, iow they are not eternal in and of themselves, but the creator aspect of God is eternal.

So now if we consider the reality represented by the concept of 'universe' as the creation of God, it is eternal because God the creator aspect is eternal and has been creating and destroying eternally, only the individual created things of God are temporal.

God is one, creator and creation are just the conceptual complementary opposite aspects of the one God, God the creator and God the created, the two are in fact an indivisible one.

 

[GoodAttention]

I agree. I think space and time are actual, functional on matter, though I don't see it clearly yet. Physics seems to support my notion but my grasp of Physics is nowhere. Any ideas?

By functional do you mean relative? I suppose these terms would be interchangeable (within my limited grasp of physics also)

We can measure distance between two objects, and we can measure relative velocity also.
Some galaxies are moving away from us, others towards us.

"Playing" time from singularity, the division of matter meant "parts" were moving away from each?
So how is it that, now, some of these parts are moving towards each other again?

The universe is 14+ billion years old, so are there photons of electromagnetic radiation that are 14+ billions lights years away from the point of singularity?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I agree. I think space and time are actual, functional on matter, though I don't see it clearly yet. Physics seems to support my notion but my grasp of Physics is nowhere. Any ideas?

The reality represented by the concept 'God' is infinite and eternal, the reality represented by the concept 'space' and 'time' is infinite and eternal respectively. God is one, there is nothing outside of God. God is the eternal now, God is the infinite space.
The reality represented by the concept of time is an abstraction from eternal existence to create a finite segment of eternal existence which is then measured by some proxy means. Same with finite space, it is an abstraction from infinity to create a finite 3D segment which is then measured by proxy.

 

[shunyadragon]

Some are..

No none are. Science does not prove anything.

Is it not a fact that 'hereditary traits' are passed on from parents to their offspring?

No, the facts are the objective verifiable evidence in terms of facts that support the conclusion that hereditary traits are passed onto the offspring.

..so more than a theory, then.


You've just contradicted yourself.

Evolutionary_psychology - Wikipedia

Are you suggesting that no unproven theories exist in the above?

Please note your reference that Evolutionary Psychology is not described as a theory in and of itself.. It is a division of Psychology that "uses a theoretical approach and interprets human behavior in terms of the Sciences of Evolution.

Evolutionary_psychology - Wikipedia


Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in psychology that examines cognition and behavior from a modern evolutionary perspective.[1][2] It seeks to identify human psychological adaptations with regards to the ancestral problems they evolved to solve. In this framework, psychological traits and mechanisms are either functional products of natural and sexual selection or non-adaptive by-products of other adaptive traits.

The fundamental basis for the sciences of Evolution were well established well before Evolutionary Psychology ever existed as a discipline,

All the references cited in your reference are very recent.

Actually the sciences of evolution were well established before we much if any knowledge of Genetics.

What you have failed to do provide and scientific references that actually successfully challenge the fact that the Sciences of Evolution have described the history of life beyond any doubt. You perpetually 'argue from supposed ignorance' of what you claim science does not know, and challenge Evolutionary Psychology, which you know nothing about.

 

[gnostic]

Have you ever considered that the reality represented by the concept of God as an indivisible one

There are words for that: “superstition” being one of them.

Unfounded belief, myth. Primitive, ancient & medieval people believe that a god, spirit, demon, fairy, and all sorts of supernatural entities that are one with the sky, Sun, Moon, stars, rain, lightning or thunder, forests, mountains, rivers or seas, forests, they imagined under every rocks and crevices, or haunted them in their dreams, inspired them or drove them to madness.

That people are superstitious to this day, seems very odd to me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are words for that: “superstition” being one of them.

Unfounded belief, myth. Primitive, ancient & medieval people believe that a god, spirit, demon, fairy, and all sorts of supernatural entities that are one with the sky, Sun, Moon, stars, rain, lightning or thunder, forests, mountains, rivers or seas, forests, they imagined under every rocks and crevices, or haunted them in their dreams, inspired them or drove them to madness.

That people are superstitious to this day, seems very odd to me.

Your opinion is noted, God bless you my dear gnostic.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I said "Is it not a fact that 'hereditary traits' are passed on from parents to their offspring?"

No, the facts are the objective verifiable evidence in terms of facts that support the conclusion that hereditary traits are passed onto the offspring.

Pedantic waffle.

 

[shunyadragon]

I said "Is it not a fact that 'hereditary traits' are passed on from parents to their offspring?"


Pedantic waffle.

Classic failure to respond to basic "facts about science."

Is childish name calling all you can come up with without a knowledge of science based on an ancient tribal agenda"

what you describe as "pedantic" is a precise accurate description of science and terminology without your extreme religious bias,

Your opinion is noted, God bless you my dear gnostic.

Your avoiding the clear and specific definitions of what is "opinion, supernatural and miraculous," and the difference between evidence based knowledge, and subjective beliefs without evidence,

"The next word in the dictionary after miracle is mirage."

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree. I think space and time are actual, functional on matter, though I don't see it clearly yet. Physics seems to support my notion but my grasp of Physics is nowhere. Any ideas?

Though I believe time as we know it is dependent on the nature of our time/space universe, Quantum time explains time at the Quantum scale of our physical existence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I agree. I think space and time are actual, functional on matter, though I don't see it clearly yet. Physics seems to support my notion but my grasp of Physics is nowhere. Any ideas?

General Relativity defines gravity as a geometric property of space and time; spacetime is curved by proximity to mass and energy, so if we accept Relativity as a reasonable approximation of objective reality (rather than a functional abstraction) we can say space and time have substance, or fabric.

In Quantum Mechanics, space and time are considered to be granular (reducible to discrete quanta), but whether energy and mass may be considered properties of time and space itself, as opposed to properties solely of entities evolving in time and space, is an unresolved question as far as I am aware. In fact I’m not even sure the question makes sense.

 

[gnostic]

General Relativity defines gravity as a geometric property of space and time; spacetime is curved by proximity to mass and energy, so if we accept Relativity as a reasonable approximation of objective reality (rather than a functional abstraction) we can say space and time have substance, or fabric.

In Quantum Mechanics, space and time are considered to be granular (reducible to discrete quanta), but whether energy and mass may be considered properties of time and space itself, as opposed to properties solely of entities evolving in time and space, is an unresolved question as far as I am aware. In fact I’m not even sure the question makes sense.

True on both accounts - on GR & on QM.

Based on my understanding of spacetime, what you called “substance“, I think the substance is the ”vacuum energy”.

From Wikipedia on Vacuum Energy, opening paragraph -

Vacuum Energy - Wikipedia

Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire universe. The vacuum energy is a special case of zero-point energy that relates to the quantum vacuum.

For anyone who has interest, I would recommend reading the quantum vacuum state, quantum fluctuation, quantum field, to get some better understanding of the Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and the cosmology of space.

 

[gnostic]

Your opinion is noted, God bless you my dear gnostic.

Yes, it is my opinion that what you say is based on belief in superstitions.

You seemed to be seeing God everywhere, when you wrote

The reality represented by the concept 'God' is infinite and eternal, the reality represented by the concept 'space' and 'time' is infinite and eternal respectively. God is one, there is nothing outside of God. God is the eternal now, God is the infinite space.

You, yourself, is expressing one’s own opinion, about seeing God everywhere.

When you personifying nature with “God”, that‘s really the textbook case of a “superstition”.

You cannot say, what I say to be opinion, when you are denying to have personal opinions of your own.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your avoiding the clear and specific definitions of what is "opinion, supernatural and miraculous," and the difference between evidence based knowledge, and subjective beliefs without evidence,

"The next word in the dictionary after miracle is mirage."

Thank you for your opinion, God bless you my dear shunyadragon.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, it is my opinion that what you say is based on belief in superstitions.

You seemed to be seeing God everywhere, when you wrote

You, yourself, is expressing one’s own opinion, about seeing God everywhere.

When you personifying nature with “God”, that‘s really the textbook case of a “superstition”.

You cannot say, what I say to be opinion, when you are denying to have personal opinions of your own.

We are talking about the same reality as you call the universe, I respect that and use that term myself in the scientific context, but in the proper religious context, I may use the concept 'God', or more specifically 'God's creation', God bless.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you for your opinion, God bless you my dear shunyadragon.

I have very good reason to doubt the sincerity your gratuitous "Thank you."

Your avoiding the clear and specific definitions of what is "opinion, supernatural and miraculous," and the difference between evidence based knowledge, and subjective beliefs without evidence,
"
The next word in the dictionary after miracle is mirage."