Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[blü 2]

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 don't understand how any real state of affairs can change in the absence of time. So I have no idea how a hypothetical real being existing without time could even think, let alone act to cause change.

My failure to understand this extends to any hypothesis that says time didn't exist before the Big Bang, since time coming into being involves change from no-time to time.

 

[firedragon]

But does he give the scientific reason why nothing would become something?

Of course not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean to say you have no beliefs, and you believe it is lying if someone implies you do?

Now I understand that it is forbidden by RF to accuse another member of lying, so I won't say a word and just let others judge the veracity of your claim that you have no beliefs, and that I lied when I spoke of your scientific beliefs.

More poor reading comprehension.

Try again. Do you really want people to treat you as if you failed the fifth grade? You can do better than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, if the universe existed always then it had no beginning, now we are in agreement, the universe is eternal.

Once again you forgot about the lesson of the number line.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are talking about direction, south, east, north, and west, do you understand these names represent different directions. If I ask you to look at the southern sky, do you know where to look. If you do it properly, then you are looking south. See, not so difficult, just remember it is not a place, it is a direction.

I asked you a very reasonable question. I will take your dodge as an admission that you were wrong.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is the concept of time as the 4th dimension of 3D space, and then there is the concept of time as an entity in itself as in the concept of eternity.

More poor reading comprehension.

Try again. Do you really want people to treat you as if you failed the fifth grade? You can do better than that.

Everyone is an expression of God (or the Universe if you prefer), but they are not all equal expressions, "by their fruits ye will know them".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Once again you forgot about the lesson of the number line.

The concept of a number line is irrelevant, time as a concept can represent eternity, no beginning and no end (or any finite period within eternity), and that is the context I am using.

In the same way that the south direction continues beyond the South Pole to infinity, time exists into the past beyond the human conception of a BB universal beginning, to eternity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I asked you a very reasonable question. I will take your dodge as an admission that you were wrong.

That's cheeky, you dodge my question on the basis that you claim I was dodging.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is the concept of time as the 4th dimension of 3D space, and then there is the concept of time as an entity in itself as in the concept of eternity.

That's what I just said.
'time' is defined scientifically as relative to space, whereas philosophically it is not, and
so we have the concept of eternity .. which we can all understand .. even if we don't
"believe it" to be true.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's what I just said.
'time' is defined scientifically as relative to space, whereas philosophically it is not, and
so we have the concept of eternity .. which we can all understand .. even if we don't
"believe it" to be true.

And thus the dilemma for the BB start theory, how to find a reasonable scientific explanation for getting 4D timespace reality into existence from no 4D timespace reality.

 

[fatemahmanahil]

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?

The universe didn't always exist because time itself began with the universe. Since God is believed to be outside of time, He doesn't experience time like we do. God isn't bound by past, present, or future. His act of creating the universe was timeless. From our perspective, we see the universe as having a beginning, but for God, creation could be an eternal act. There was no "before" the universe, because time didn't exist until the universe was created. God's decision to create wasn’t made at a point in time but in a timeless way. The universe has a beginning, but God's act of creation transcends time.

 

[ratiocinator]

In the same way that the south direction continues beyond the South Pole to infinity, time exists into the past beyond the human conception of a BB universal beginning, to eternity.

This appears to be a statement of blind faith, it's not what the current evidence supports. Time is nothing but an observer dependent direction through space-time.

And thus the dilemma for the BB start theory, how to find a reasonable scientific explanation for getting 4D timespace reality into existence from no 4D timespace reality.

According to the General Relativity view, you don't have to get the space-time into existence. It is not, as a whole, subject to time at all. It cannot come into existence, it just is.

Philosophically, it corresponds to the eternalism view of time.

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This appears to be a statement of blind faith, it's not what the current evidence supports. Time is nothing but an observer dependent direction through space-time.


According to the General Relativity view, you don't have to get the space-time into existence. It is not, as a whole, subject to time at all. It cannot come into existence, it just is.

Philosophically, it corresponds to the eternalism view of time.

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, time is just the continuation of 3D space.

So if you have GR saying spacetime just is, always, why do the BBers here say spacetime only came into existence with the BB?

 

[ratiocinator]

So if you have GR saying spacetime just is, always, why do the BBers here say spacetime only came into existence with the BB?

Firstly, lots of people have a rather vague notion of the actual theory. Secondly, time would be finite in the past direction, so viewed from inside the space-time, it's sort of true.

Actually, it's an unknown whether time is finite in the past because GR breaks down and Quantum Field Theory will become important and we don't know how they work together, so we don't really know what happened. However, the nature of space-time is difficult to question, not least because of the relativity of simultaneity. There is no absolute present.

Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Firstly, lots of people have a rather vague notion of the actual theory. Secondly, time would be finite in the past direction, so viewed from inside the space-time, it's sort of true.

Actually, it's an unknown whether time is finite in the past because GR breaks down and Quantum Field Theory will become important and we don't know how they work together, so we don't really know what happened. However, the nature of space-time is difficult to question, not least because of the relativity of simultaneity. There is no absolute present.

Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well I am with philosophical eternalism, for the reason that logically, non-existence cannot exist because it is non-existent. Infinity must also be a fact, for the same reason, there is no non-existence in space as well as time.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well I am with philosophical eternalism, for the reason that logically, non-existence cannot exist because it is non-existent. Infinity must also be a fact, for the same reason, there is no non-existence in space as well as time.

Eternalism is about the nature of time, not about eternity. If time is finite in the past, then it doesn't imply non-existence. There would be no time at which nothing existed. In that case 'before the big bang' would be meaningless because it doesn't refer to a time.

And space might also be finite, although the small amount of indicative evidence suggests that it's infinite.

You have to get away from The Newtonian view that you can necessarily extend the notions of space and time without limit. We know that space-time is not the absolute background that it seems to be and that Newton formalised.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's cheeky, you dodge my question on the basis that you claim I was dodging.

No, when you are asked reasonable questions you do not get to dodge it by asking different ones. You screwed up a long time ago. I am merely reminding you of that fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The concept of a number line is irrelevant, time as a concept can represent eternity, no beginning and no end (or any finite period within eternity), and that is the context I am using.

In the same way that the south direction continues beyond the South Pole to infinity, time exists into the past beyond the human conception of a BB universal beginning, to eternity.

No, you do not get to claim that. That is where you screwed up. This is you making the error of attempting to reason using Newtonian physics and it simply does not apply here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is the concept of time as the 4th dimension of 3D space, and then there is the concept of time as an entity in itself as in the concept of eternity.

Everyone is an expression of God (or the Universe if you prefer), but they are not all equal expressions, "by their fruits ye will know them".

Please you have no understanding of time. You simply cannot grasp the concept that it appears that time had a beginning. This is why the number line example is a good one that I gave you. You can get infinitely close to the beginning of time looking backwards, but you can never get there. In a sense it is like trying to go the speed of light. No matter how fast you go a ray of light will still pass you at the speed of light.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Eternalism is about the nature of time, not about eternity. If time is finite in the past, then it doesn't imply non-existence. There would be no time at which nothing existed. In that case 'before the big bang' would be meaningless because it doesn't refer to a time.

And space might also be finite, although the small amount of indicative evidence suggests that it's infinite.

You have to get away from The Newtonian view that you can necessarily extend the notions of space and time without limit. We know that space-time is not the absolute background that it seems to be and that Newton formalised.

Concepts represent reality, they are not reality except as concepts. I deal in reality, unless you can show me the reality, or a way of realizing it, for which the concept represents, then it means nothing to me.

What is the reality represented by 'no time before the BB'?