Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I am baffled why you continue to argue with me. We are not going to agree. You have a religious belief that the universe always existed, so you filter everything with that idea. I accept the standard scientific theory that the universe had a beginning--the big bang. Now, it really doesn't make sense to keep arguing about it. We are just going around in circles. For me, I'm simply going to move on. You can have the last say.

Absolutely NO, there is no such thing as a 'standard scientific theory' that our universe had a beginning in the Big Bang. There are a number of different theories and some scientists propose that the universe is possibly cyclic.

Again 'Do you understand what 'potentially infinite' means. I never said that our universe nor out physical existence is infinite in space and/or eternal in time.

I believe it is you that is anchored in a religious agenda.

 

[MonkeyFire]

In terms of human existence, hundreds of thousands of years at least, and billions of years of earth history, a few millennia is not very long.

In terms of Heavens nature, their time goes by way faster and they experience far more while we do very little.

 

[shunyadragon]

In terms of Heavens nature, their time goes by way faster and they experience far more while we do very little.

Huh?!?!?! There is no even a Biblical citation to support this assertion. Your post represemts a very imaginative response on your part. Can you provide any objective evidence concerning what the nature of heaven is?

Still . . . In terms of human existence, hundreds of thousands of years at least, and billions of years of earth history, a few millennia is not very long.

 

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I am baffled why you continue to argue with me. We are not going to agree. You have a religious belief that the universe always existed, so you filter everything with that idea. I accept the standard scientific theory that the universe had a beginning--the big bang. Now, it really doesn't make sense to keep arguing about it. We are just going around in circles. For me, I'm simply going to move on. You can have the last say.

To add: I do not just continue to argue whatever. My religious belief has nothing to do with what I describe from the scientific perspective. There is absolutely no evidence that the Big Bang represents an absolute beginning from the scientific perspective. In fact ot is basically unknown whether our universe nor our physical existence is infinite in time or space, or our universe and physical existence is temporal or finite.

What I describe based on the evidence is our universe and physical existence is 'potentially infinite and eternal.'

 

[SDavis]

But written by whom? Also, would you say that the observable 400 billion plus light years away was created for humankind?

Are you asking who wrote the Bible. Strange question I thought most people knew there are various translators of the New Testament from the Greeks. 13 books I believe is the correct number, written by Paul. The others written by or for some of the followers of Christ.

The Old Testament the first five books accepted to be written by Moses. Others by the prophets, some by the scribes, some by King David, Solomon. Thousands of years of transcripts means different people had a hand in the writings

You ask would I say that the observable 400 plus light years away was created for mankind. Are you asking if I believe that the universe was created for mankind, no I do not. Only the Earth and this solar system in such a way to support the life forms that inhabit the Earth..... I believe that the Earth was God's Garden - long before man was placed here and it became/was cursed after the sin of man. I believe in a new heaven and new earth as Jesus said he goes to prepare a place that where he is we may be also and according to Revelations that place he prepares will have no sun, no moon, no seas, and he will be the light thereof.

And those two scriptures plus Genesis 1:1 tells us God is a Creator and is always creating - thus that viewable universe 400 billion light years away.

 

[David Davidovich]

It isn't something you translate word for word. This is actually one of the mistakes made by translators who don't know the oral Torah or who do but are conflicted with how much information they can pack into a translation concerning the words, structure, and meaning. It is something that you translate as a "group" of concepts - which makes the translation more lengthy and wordy. There are even entire discussions just about the letters of the first word alone.

For example, "In a beginning Elohim created/from non-established/non-existant material/principles/etc. the shamayyim and the eretz..." would be a "better" but not perfect or sufficient way of translating it rather than calling shamayyim "heavens" and calling eretz "earth."

The reason is because now you have to ask what is "shamayyim" and what is "eretz." Some English translations can give you the idea that by using the word "heavens" the sky is being talked about or by using the word "earth" the planet we are on is being talked about. In reality, this is not what is being discussed and one the reason is because of the words used in Hebrew and thousands of years of Jewish history describe what the text actually means as something way beyond the sky and even the earth, the planet we are on.

I see. So, my next logical question would be: Then why do the following verses in Genesis 1 describe the sky and the earth?

 

[David Davidovich]

If this is concidered a Abrahamic religious principle then Torath Mosheh and ancient Judaism would not be an Abrahamic. Neither posit nor express a "needs for Creator deity in the creation." There doesn't have to be a creator in creation if in reality there isn't. The claim of Torath Mosheh and ancient Judaism is that the Source of the concept of creation/reality presented itself in a mass revelation to the Israeli/Jewish people at a placed called Har Sinai and thus the concept of such a reality was established for the Israeli/Jewish people in repeatable fashion to show that this was the case.

Yet, on its own without the claim of a national revelation there doesn't have to be a creator if in reality there was not one.

Hmmm. I had to read that post two or three times to let what you were saying sink in. Therefore, are you saying that prior to the claim of Torath Mosheh and ancient Judaism (although, I had thought that you didn't use the word "Judaism" to describe Torath Mosheh Jews), that even those who were of the ancient lineage of the Hebrew people did not have a concept of creation until the Source of the concept of creation/reality presented itself in a mass revelation to the Israeli/Jewish people at a placed called Har Sinai?

 

[David Davidovich]

The words in the part shown below are words that are often translated as "the heavens and the earth." YET, in Hebrew they don't mean what heaven and earth often mean in English. Most ancient descriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic which discuss this particular statement would equate better to "principles of reality/natural laws of the universe and matter."

Again, the first part of the Torah has loads of lengthy discussions that are like reading text books on Physics, Thermodynamics, Chemistry, etc. A word for word translations is not possible, and when done is often like how one talks in English to children about the world.

So, that is what God/Hashem is supposed to have given humankind for guidance and understanding?

Also, as I had mentioned before, it seems like for some reason, the description of the sky and the earth is followed by this, um, "concept."

 

[David Davidovich]

First of all, we're talking about a god concept which is beyond time. So yes, science fiction is the genre.

Dictionary.com definition of "fiction."

1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories:detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story:
We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.

But continuing...

You asked if there was "anything" in the text that I base my ideas on. The answer is, yes. Anytime God is described as from everlasting to everlasting that indicates that God is beyond time.

Fair enough. Although at this point, that could have came from the assumption or the imagination of the writer of that text.

I didn't indicate something in the text to prove to you that "could be" events exist because I honestly think it's obvious. The concept of "could-be" events is based on the idea of choice, free-will. Each and every commandment given is a choice. So there's many examples in written text. The one that comes to mind is Deuteronomy 30:19. Moses is summarizing the entire Torah before his death.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live;
​

There you have it. Choose. Free-will exists. God is beyond time. Based on the text.

But what's that got to do with infinite scenarios and possibilities floating around in God's heads all the time? Because why wouldn't reality only exist as it is unfolding? Because in the end, doesn't the reality that ends up unfolding, the only reality that really matters?

Entertaining the possibility of anything is nothing more than giving choice.

LOL I'm sorry, but what does that even mean? LOL

The generation of multiverses is an extremely complicated concept. Multiverse - Wikipedia If you read the article, it's not a new idea. And there's a list of accomplished individuals who support it.

Argument from authority fallacy?

In order to approach an understanding of it in this context it takes time, effort, and an open mind. One needs to consider, how is God creating? To what can it be compared to? What is an example of something that exists, but was not created in the conventional manner? What does this word, "עוֹלָם", really mean? Not just on the surface, but what does it mean on a deeper level? What does this word, "בָּרָ֣א", mean? Each letter is significant. What does the aleph at the end mean? And why is this word reserved for divine creation?

Don't know, don't know, don't know, don't know, don't know, and don't know, therefore, you'll have to tell me.

You say that you don't see the point of having endless possibilities for a monotheistic god? Sure, that's because "monotheistic god" is a shallow superficial description. In order to "see the point" look deeper.

Sorry, but that's very vague.

No it's not a contradiction. Free-will is not the same as absolute freedom.

Now let's look at what I said and compare it to the verse in Isaiah.

I said:

The beginning and the end are defined, and what happens in the middle is the result of what "could be".​

Isa 46:10:

I tell the end from the beginning, and from before, what was not done; say, 'My counsel shall stand, and all My desire I will do.'
​

Here's what I get from the verse:

• The end and the beginning are defined.
• "before" the beginning exists.
• "what was not done" are undefined "could be" events. Done means completed, finished
• all of this is God's desire

That pretty much matches what I said. Excellent choice on that verse!

​

But that's not what Isaiah 46:10 is saying to me. It just seems to be making the simple point that God can declare from the beginning how something is going to end. And then he reiterates "how something is going to end" by wording it differently by saying, "that which hath not been done." (See Young's Literal Translation.) Because how could God even declare the ending if he can't even see or know the specific ending?

 

[David Davidovich]

Sorry I just noticed. Did you mean transliterate or did you intend to state translate?

It doesn't matter. Either or.

 

[David Davidovich]

The size of the Earth is irrelevant to the theological question. I could've chosen any planet, any star, any blackhole, or even any universe. Why didn't the Earth always exist?



If the Force that created the Earth is outside of Earth time and *always* existed, how could this Force have waited until a point in time to create the Earth?

Great logic. But I'm curious about something. Do you believe that this "Force" was intelligent or not?

How about a different question... this one pertains to the video game Minecraft...
Why didn't a world of Minecraft always exist?
(A world of Minecraft is an individual Minecraft universe. Worlds can be created with the "Create New World" button)
How could the makers of Minecraft have waited until a point in time to create Minecraft?
Maybe Minecraft always existed... ? (cue spooky music)

Well, seeing that video games are created by human beings...

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I see. So, my next logical question would be: Then why do the following verses in Genesis 1 describe the sky and the earth?

The following verses aren't talking about the sky and the earth. as those terms are understood in English. I.e. they aren't focused on this planet. They are talking about matter and the rules of how the universe works across the board - in general.

The focus on this planet doesn't happen until the "fifth day."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So, that is what God/Hashem is supposed to have given humankind for guidance and understanding?

The Torah is for the Jewish people but you have to remember that the Torah is both written and oral together, not seperated. There are a lots of Torath Mosheh discussions about what the entire account in both the written and oral elements mean and what can be gained from it intellectually.

The non-Jewish elements of humanity have the 7 mitzvoth.

Both Jews and non-Jews have a mission, as being human, of trying to understand how the reality we live in works. That is one of the lessons of the first part of the Torah.

Also, as I had mentioned before, it seems like for some reason, the description of the sky and the earth is followed by this, um, "concept."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Hmmm. (although, I had thought that you didn't use the word "Judaism" to describe Torath Mosheh Jews)

Notice that I wrote, "ancient Judaism". There is a word in Hebrew called Yahaduth, which ancient only meant Torath Mosheh and traditions from the tribe of Yehudah (Judah). I used in this context for a reason.

Therefore, are you saying that prior to the claim of Torath Mosheh and ancient Judaism that even those who were of the ancient lineage of the Hebrew people did not have a concept of creation until the Source of the concept of creation/reality presented itself in a mass revelation to the Israeli/Jewish people at a placed called Har Sinai?

No. Prior to the Torah being giving as a national revelation - Avraham ben-Terahh (who is called Abraham in English) and his descendants had only the personal revelation of their leaders. I.e. Avraham ben-Terahh, Yitzhhaq ben-Avraham, Ya'aqov ben-Yitzhhaq, Yehudah ben-Ya'aqov, and Yoseph ben-Ya'aqov had personal revelations that either people accepted/beleived based on their personalities or did not accept.

There are a lot of ancient cultures that knew that something created all of the reality. Another sub-set also claimed that there was one source of creation/reality. Avraham ben-Terahh's point in his culture was that they were placing things that were created in place of the source of creation.

The giving of the Torah as a mass revelation to the Israeli people and also the non-Israelis who were there changed that circumstance so that instead of personal revelation there was a national revelation on what the reality is.

 

[metis]

Notice that I wrote, "ancient Judaism". There is a word in Hebrew called Yahaduth, which ancient only meant Torath Mosheh and traditions from the tribe of Yehudah (Judah). I used in this context for a reason.



No. Prior to the Torah being giving as a national revelation - Avraham ben-Terahh (who is called Abraham in English) and his descendants had only the personal revelation of their leaders. I.e. Avraham ben-Terahh, Yitzhhaq ben-Avraham, Ya'aqov ben-Yitzhhaq, Yehudah ben-Ya'aqov, and Yoseph ben-Ya'aqov had personal revelations that either people accepted/beleived based on their personalities or did not accept.

There are a lot of ancient cultures that knew that something created all of the reality. Another sub-set also claimed that there was one source of creation/reality. Avraham ben-Terahh's point in his culture was that they were placing things that were created in place of the source of creation.

The giving of the Torah as a mass revelation to the Israeli people and also the non-Israelis who were there changed that circumstance so that instead of personal revelation there was a national revelation on what the reality is.

There's a commentary that has it that the Genesis creation accounts were haShem's 7th creation with the previous 6 being largely, but not entirely, destroyed by Him. This might explain where Cain's wife came from.

 

[viole]

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?

Since there is no flow of time, I am not sure what you mean by that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Dictionary.com definition of "fiction."

"Science Fiction" is the genre. From Dictionary.com: "a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc."

And, this is *your* premise. From the OP: "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?"

Since God is supposed to be ... is speculation. In other words, it's a fictional premise. We're imagining.

Fair enough. Although at this point, that could have came from the assumption or the imagination of the writer of that text.

regardless, you asked a question in the OP, I answered it. Then you asked for scriptural support. I provided it. Now you're commenting about the credibility of the scripture I provided... that's not the topic of the debate.

But what's that got to do with infinite scenarios and possibilities floating around in God's heads all the time? Because why wouldn't reality only exist as it is unfolding? Because in the end, doesn't the reality that ends up unfolding, the only reality that really matters?

You're asking the right questions, but I think what's missing is a good working definition of reality. How are you with math?

LOL I'm sorry, but what does that even mean? LOL

Well... laughing at me isn't going to encourage information sharing.

Here's the exchange.

You said: "[that verse] says nothing about God entertaining possible occurrences in possible multiverses."

Then I said: "Entertaining the possibility of anything is nothing more than giving choice."

Looking at your statement, and then looking at my response, it should be obvious that we're talking about God entertaining the possibility and giving choice. Yes, it would have been clearer if I had said: "God entertaining the possibility of anything is nothing more than giving choice." You really don't understand these words?

If I am entertaining the possibility of a trip to Florida, I'm giving myself the choice to go to Florida.

Argument from authority fallacy?

No, did you read what I said? Did you try to understand it?

I said:

"The generation of multiverses is an extremely complicated concept. Multiverse - Wikipedia If you read the article, it's not a new idea. And there's a list of accomplished individuals who support it."​

What was the point I was making? It's an extremely complicated concept. Then I direct you to the wiki page to confirm that. That's not appealing to authority, that's demonstrating its complexity. The details about not being new and the diverse support for it are ancillary to the main idea which is the complexity.

However, the fact that multi-verse theory is supported by accomplished scientists leads logically into the next part of my reply.

"In order to approach an understanding of it in this context it takes time, effort, and an open mind."
​

Approaching an understanding takes time and effort. Becoming an accomplished scientist takes time and effort.

Don't know, don't know, don't know, don't know, don't know, and don't know, therefore, you'll have to tell me.

No, I don't need to tell you. The point I was making was about complexity. All I have to do to prove my point is to demonstrate your ignorance of the depth and complexity of the topic of creation and eternity in Torah.

And, honestly, I think "telling you" is counter productive. I gave you the answer in the OP. I told you the conclusion, where all of this is heading. Your objection was, it's "convenient". In other words, it was too good to be true. Too simple, too elegant. It completely erased the contradiction between an eternal god and a beginning of creation. But, since you hadn't done the work to understand how something like this is derived, it's perfectly natural and normal to hand-wave it away.

If you want to understand it, and accept the results, I think you need to do the work and rederive it for yourself. Looking for it in scripture requires Hebrew. I gave you some leads, you haven't put in any effort it seems to research those.

Also, these things take time. The place to start, if you want to go the scriptural route is with the first letter, Aleph. But you'll need to cultivate some humility. These concepts are taught to children at a very early age. So these concepts are developed over time. And you're getting late start if you want to understand. It's here, at the child-like level where you need to begin. There's nothing wrong with it, this is where you're at, it's best to accept it, if you want to learn.

But honestly, there's no reason for you to go the scriptural route. The same ideas can be derived in other ways, outside of scripture, and I think that's probably a better path for you. Math is great for this.

Sorry, but that's very vague.

You don't know what "dig deeper" means?

But that's not what Isaiah 46:10 is saying to me. It just seems to be making the simple point

Oh, there's a lot going on in that verse... it's far from simple.

God can declare from the beginning how something is going to end.

Yes! the beginning and the end are defined.

And then he reiterates "how something is going to end" by wording it differently by saying, "that which hath not been done." (See Young's Literal Translation.)

The english is obscuring what's being said here.

Because how could God even declare the ending if he can't even see or know the specific ending?

Good. You're asking the right questions. But I think you're misunderstanding the verse. What's not known is not the end, it's part of the beginning, but after creation. There's so much going on in the Hebrew, especially once verse 9 is included.

 

[David Davidovich]

Are you asking who wrote the Bible. Strange question I thought most people knew there are various translators of the New Testament from the Greeks. 13 books I believe is the correct number, written by Paul. The others written by or for some of the followers of Christ.

The Old Testament the first five books accepted to be written by Moses. Others by the prophets, some by the scribes, some by King David, Solomon. Thousands of years of transcripts means different people had a hand in the writings

You ask would I say that the observable 400 plus light years away was created for mankind. Are you asking if I believe that the universe was created for mankind, no I do not. Only the Earth and this solar system in such a way to support the life forms that inhabit the Earth..... I believe that the Earth was God's Garden - long before man was placed here and it became/was cursed after the sin of man. I believe in a new heaven and new earth as Jesus said he goes to prepare a place that where he is we may be also and according to Revelations that place he prepares will have no sun, no moon, no seas, and he will be the light thereof.

And those two scriptures plus Genesis 1:1 tells us God is a Creator and is always creating - thus that viewable universe 400 billion light years away.

I see.

 

[David Davidovich]

The following verses aren't talking about the sky and the earth. as those terms are understood in English. I.e. they aren't focused on this planet. They are talking about matter and the rules of how the universe works across the board - in general.

The focus on this planet doesn't happen until the "fifth day."

Okay, bear with me because I'm going to be quoting from Genesis 1 from an English translation.

Gensis 1:1-23:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Verse 5 says: God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. So, how could there be evening and morning anywhere else other than on earth?

Verses 6 to 8 say: And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. And yes, I know what a comet is, but where else other than earth is there a specific reference to a vault and separated water under and above the vault? Also, what is this verse supposed to be referring to with the word "sky" and the words morning and evening? Where else other than earth do those three things exist?

Same idea with verses 9 and 10: 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. Other than earth, where else in the universe are there planets with dry ground/land and waters or seas?

Same thing with11-13 verses : 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. So, where else other than earth is there vegetation, seed-bearing plants and trees that bear fruit, etc.?

And with verses 14-19: 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. I can see how this could apply to other planets, but I don't understand why this isn't applying to the planet earth.

And finally, there's verses 20 to 23 that are only now supposed to be starting to refer to the planet earth. Please explain.

 

[David Davidovich]

There are some ancient Jewish sources that state that during Day One, not first day as is sometimes mistranslated, there were numerous realities that existed, ran their course, and then ceased over and over again until our current reality was established.

Also, I forgot to mention that what you said almost seems to imply that God kind of had to keep trying and trying to bring our current reality into existence... until he finally got it right.