Did the universe begin to exist?

[notachance]

Imagine you believed the earth was flat (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If the earth was flat, then there would be only two possible options:

Either

1) The earth has an edge, much like a pizza has an edge

or

2) The earth stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed the earth was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever.

From the prospective of a person who believes the earth is flat, the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT, if you upgrade your understanding of the earth from flat to globe, then the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" makes perfect sense.

Now, imagine you believed that space-time was flat, that space had no effect on time and that time was completely linear (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If time was not affected by space, and was therefore completely linear there would only be two possible options:

Either

1) Space-time has a beginning, much like a year has a beginning

or

2) Space-time stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed that space-time was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that space time neither had a beginning nor did it exist forever.

From the prospective of one with a Newtonian understanding of physics who believes space-time is flat, and time is therefore linear and unaffected by space, the statement "Space-time neither has a beginning nor did it exist forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT if you upgrade from Newtonian physics to Einstenian physics and understand that space-time is one continuum, that space-time is warped by mass, that time is affected by space and space is affected by time, and that time is not constant and linear but subjective and multidimensional, then the statement that "space-time neither has a beginning nor has it existed for ever" makes perfect sense.

It wasn't just space that came into existence at the Big Bang. Time came into existence then too.

A concept such as "three seconds before the big bang" is as nonsensical as a concept such as "three feet past the edge of the earth".

The concept of something beginning to exist requires that there was a time when it didn't exist followed by a time when it existed. This does not apply to the universe, because time didn't exist before the universe existed. Time is an internal property of the universe.

For the same reason it can't be said that the universe existed forever, because "forever" didn't exist before the Big Bang.

So it can be argued that the universe never began to exist, and hasn't existed forever.

Your thoughts?

[Goat]

Arguments are NOT evidence -- they are ONLY "thinking about stuff" and word games, and mental constructs.

Anything can "make sense" philosophically as long as there is no tie to reality or the real world.

I have to disagree with you there. If a philosophical argument properly follows the laws of logic, then it makes it likely that an argument can be very good. If deduction is used (properly), then it's just as good as a mathematical conclusion, which is better than any evidence you could find.

Except of course, you can have an argument that is valid (i.e. follows the 'laws of logic') ,but it is not sound, because it is based on invalid premises. I find the vast majority of philosophical discussions are based on premises I don't see are either valid, or often not testable. This leaves their conclusions to be questionable.

[Goat]

You apparently consider metaphysics a waste of time. That's your privilege, but it seems an interesting pasttime to me to ponder the origin of the universe - and I don't think I'm alone in this. Plenty of physicists do it as well.

Only if the premises can not be confirmed, or the conclusions can not be compared with the real world. Other than that, it's merely word games.

The big difference between pondering the origin of the universe is that physicists have a lot more knowledge about QM, and cosmology, and, once coming to a hypothesis, try to figure out ways to describe it mathematically, , see if their concept does not violate any known physical laws, and to attempt to figure out ways to test their conclusions (often unsuccessfully). Of course, some just plain mystical and weird, and try to tie the physical world into theology, but they are the exception.

[fredonly]

You apparently consider metaphysics a waste of time. That's your privilege, but it seems an interesting pasttime to me to ponder the origin of the universe - and I don't think I'm alone in this. Plenty of physicists do it as well.

Only if the premises can not be confirmed, or the conclusions can not be compared with the real world. Other than that, it's merely word games.
The big difference between pondering the origin of the universe is that physicists have a lot more knowledge about QM, and cosmology, and, once coming to a hypothesis, try to figure out ways to describe it mathematically, , see if their concept does not violate any known physical laws, and to attempt to figure out ways to test their conclusions (often unsuccessfully). Of course, some just plain mystical and weird, and try to tie the physical world into theology, but they are the exception.

I think what you’re saying is that you think it a waste of time to ponder about anything other than the natural world – since that’s the only thing that can be verified to exist. That’s a matter of opinion. Personally, I think it’s interesting to explore what people think on this topic and why they do. There are certainly plenty of believers who think they possess the TRUTH, and I get some satisfaction in exploring why they think this and especially at finding the weaknesses in their reasoning. I also find it interesting that so many atheists are so dismissive of the ideas of theists, and I like to understand why – I also see flaws in their reasoning. I realize I’m not going to solve any of life’s mysteries in so doing, but it’s still interesting. If nothing else, it’s a way to keep my aging mind active – I don’t care for crossword puzzles or Sudoku.

[Goat]

You apparently consider metaphysics a waste of time. That's your privilege, but it seems an interesting pasttime to me to ponder the origin of the universe - and I don't think I'm alone in this. Plenty of physicists do it as well.

Only if the premises can not be confirmed, or the conclusions can not be compared with the real world. Other than that, it's merely word games.
The big difference between pondering the origin of the universe is that physicists have a lot more knowledge about QM, and cosmology, and, once coming to a hypothesis, try to figure out ways to describe it mathematically, , see if their concept does not violate any known physical laws, and to attempt to figure out ways to test their conclusions (often unsuccessfully). Of course, some just plain mystical and weird, and try to tie the physical world into theology, but they are the exception.

I think what you’re saying is that you think it a waste of time to ponder about anything other than the natural world – since that’s the only thing that can be verified to exist. That’s a matter of opinion. Personally, I think it’s interesting to explore what people think on this topic and why they do. There are certainly plenty of believers who think they possess the TRUTH, and I get some satisfaction in exploring why they think this and especially at finding the weaknesses in their reasoning. I also find it interesting that so many atheists are so dismissive of the ideas of theists, and I like to understand why – I also see flaws in their reasoning. I realize I’m not going to solve any of life’s mysteries in so doing, but it’s still interesting. If nothing else, it’s a way to keep my aging mind active – I don’t care for crossword puzzles or Sudoku.

If it keeps your mind active, and you get pleasure from it, that in and of itself makes it of personal use. However, without having the word games being able to relate to the real world, it is nothing but mind games.

It might be fun, but the validity of the conclusions don't mean a heck of a whole lot.

[Susma]

[center]Posted by notachance: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:01 pm
[/center]
[ Bolding from Susma. ]



Imagine you believed the earth was flat (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If the earth was flat, then there would be only two possible options:

Either

1) The earth has an edge, much like a pizza has an edge

or

2) The earth stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed the earth was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever.

From the prospective of a person who believes the earth is flat, the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT, if you upgrade your understanding of the earth from flat to globe, then the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" makes perfect sense.

Now, imagine you believed that space-time was flat, that space had no effect on time and that time was completely linear (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If time was not affected by space, and was therefore completely linear there would only be two possible options:

Either

1) Space-time has a beginning, much like a year has a beginning

or

2) Space-time stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed that space-time was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that space time neither had a beginning nor did it exist forever.

From the prospective of one with a Newtonian understanding of physics who believes space-time is flat, and time is therefore linear and unaffected by space, the statement "Space-time neither has a beginning nor did it exist forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT if you upgrade from Newtonian physics to Einstenian physics and understand that space-time is one continuum, that space-time is warped by mass, that time is affected by space and space is affected by time, and that time is not constant and linear but subjective and multidimensional, then the statement that "space-time neither has a beginning nor has it existed for ever" makes perfect sense.

It wasn't just space that came into existence at the Big Bang. Time came into existence then too.

A concept such as "three seconds before the big bang" is as nonsensical as a concept such as "three feet past the edge of the earth".

The concept of something beginning to exist requires that there was a time when it didn't exist followed by a time when it existed. This does not apply to the universe, because time didn't exist before the universe existed. Time is an internal property of the universe.

For the same reason it can't be said that the universe existed forever, because "forever" didn't exist before the Big Bang.

So it can be argued that the universe never began to exist, and hasn't existed forever.

Your thoughts?

The title of this thread is the question "Did the universe begin to exist?"

The title is a question on a fact, namely: seeking a fact for an answer.

But the write-up all is totally and exclusively about a matter of pure conjecture, all about imagination, on conditional scenarios.


The author asks: "Your thoughts?"

My thought is that since the title of your thread is a question on a fact seeking a fact answer, your write-up should not be all and exclusively occupied with conjecture, all about imagination, all on conditional scenarios.


The fact is that the universe exists.

So your question as you put it correctly can be relevantly: "Did the universe begin to exist?"

You are asking readers to tell you what they know according to them is the fact, namely: yes, the universe did begin to exist; or no, the universe did not begin to exist.

Or in more customary formulations:

• Yes, the universe had a beginning, or
  No, the universe has always existed, is eternal.

Anyway, notachance, what is the whole real point of your thread?


This board is into Christianity and Apologetics, not into science fiction.



Also I want to tell you that notwithstanding that you are into science fiction, you should have taken the care to present your definition or your concept of the universe, and your concept of "begin", and of "exist".


I like very much to go into this thread but no longer as science fiction but as the search for the fact that the universe did have a beginning, or the universe has always existed, namely, the universe is eternal.


And I have another thought about your thread, notachance, namely, everybody left this thread, why?

Another thread that turns out to be silly, unproductive, and unprofitable to readers in the way of advancing their knowledge of the world?

And you yourself shows no interest to keep it alive by continuing to feed it.

This thread was started by you on Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:01 pm, the last post #34, prior to my here, was on Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:42 pm.

It is now in my place 8 hours in advance of Greenwich, Sept. 28, 2011 10:42 am.

This thread has been abandoned by your for some 52 days.


I suggest that when a poster here starts a thread, he should stick to it until when he wants to leave it already, in which event he should tell people he is through with it, and give his explanation why.




Susma

[bernee51]

[center]Posted by notachance: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:01 pm
[/center]
[ Bolding from Susma. ]



Imagine you believed the earth was flat (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If the earth was flat, then there would be only two possible options:

Either

1) The earth has an edge, much like a pizza has an edge

or

2) The earth stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed the earth was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever.

From the prospective of a person who believes the earth is flat, the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT, if you upgrade your understanding of the earth from flat to globe, then the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" makes perfect sense.

Now, imagine you believed that space-time was flat, that space had no effect on time and that time was completely linear (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If time was not affected by space, and was therefore completely linear there would only be two possible options:

Either

1) Space-time has a beginning, much like a year has a beginning

or

2) Space-time stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed that space-time was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that space time neither had a beginning nor did it exist forever.

From the prospective of one with a Newtonian understanding of physics who believes space-time is flat, and time is therefore linear and unaffected by space, the statement "Space-time neither has a beginning nor did it exist forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT if you upgrade from Newtonian physics to Einstenian physics and understand that space-time is one continuum, that space-time is warped by mass, that time is affected by space and space is affected by time, and that time is not constant and linear but subjective and multidimensional, then the statement that "space-time neither has a beginning nor has it existed for ever" makes perfect sense.

It wasn't just space that came into existence at the Big Bang. Time came into existence then too.

A concept such as "three seconds before the big bang" is as nonsensical as a concept such as "three feet past the edge of the earth".

The concept of something beginning to exist requires that there was a time when it didn't exist followed by a time when it existed. This does not apply to the universe, because time didn't exist before the universe existed. Time is an internal property of the universe.

For the same reason it can't be said that the universe existed forever, because "forever" didn't exist before the Big Bang.

So it can be argued that the universe never began to exist, and hasn't existed forever.

Your thoughts?

The title of this thread is the question "Did the universe begin to exist?"

The title is a question on a fact, namely: seeking a fact for an answer.

But the write-up all is totally and exclusively about a matter of pure conjecture, all about imagination, on conditional scenarios.


The author asks: "Your thoughts?"

My thought is that since the title of your thread is a question on a fact seeking a fact answer, your write-up should not be all and exclusively occupied with conjecture, all about imagination, all on conditional scenarios.


The fact is that the universe exists.

So your question as you put it correctly can be relevantly: "Did the universe begin to exist?"

You are asking readers to tell you what they know according to them is the fact, namely: yes, the universe did begin to exist; or no, the universe did not begin to exist.

Or in more customary formulations:

• Yes, the universe had a beginning, or
  No, the universe has always existed, is eternal.

Anyway, notachance, what is the whole real point of your thread?


This board is into Christianity and Apologetics, not into science fiction.



Also I want to tell you that notwithstanding that you are into science fiction, you should have taken the care to present your definition or your concept of the universe, and your concept of "begin", and of "exist".


I like very much to go into this thread but no longer as science fiction but as the search for the fact that the universe did have a beginning, or the universe has always existed, namely, the universe is eternal.


And I have another thought about your thread, notachance, namely, everybody left this thread, why?

Another thread that turns out to be silly, unproductive, and unprofitable to readers in the way of advancing their knowledge of the world?

And you yourself shows no interest to keep it alive by continuing to feed it.

This thread was started by you on Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:01 pm, the last post #34, prior to my here, was on Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:42 pm.

It is now in my place 8 hours in advance of Greenwich, Sept. 28, 2011 10:42 am.

This thread has been abandoned by your for some 52 days.


I suggest that when a poster here starts a thread, he should stick to it until when he wants to leave it already, in which event he should tell people he is through with it, and give his explanation why.


Susma

And I suggest that you address the OP not the poster.

Ad hominems are as much a fallacy of logic as the question begging in which you engage.

I find it is often wise when there is nothing constructive to say say nothing.

[notachance]

Or in more customary formulations:

• Yes, the universe had a beginning, or
  No, the universe has always existed, is eternal.

Anyway, notachance, what is the whole real point of your thread?


This board is into Christianity and Apologetics, not into science fiction.



Also I want to tell you that notwithstanding that you are into science fiction, you should have taken the care to present your definition or your concept of the universe, and your concept of "begin", and of "exist".


I like very much to go into this thread but no longer as science fiction but as the search for the fact that the universe did have a beginning, or the universe has always existed, namely, the universe is eternal.


And I have another thought about your thread, notachance, namely, everybody left this thread, why?

Another thread that turns out to be silly, unproductive, and unprofitable to readers in the way of advancing their knowledge of the world?

And you yourself shows no interest to keep it alive by continuing to feed it.

This thread was started by you on Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:01 pm, the last post #34, prior to my here, was on Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:42 pm.

It is now in my place 8 hours in advance of Greenwich, Sept. 28, 2011 10:42 am.

This thread has been abandoned by your for some 52 days.


I suggest that when a poster here starts a thread, he should stick to it until when he wants to leave it already, in which event he should tell people he is through with it, and give his explanation why.
Susma

Hi Susma, I can't begin to tell you in how many ways you are not making sense.

First, that you would refer to Einstenian Relativity as "science fiction" betrays an ignorance of basic high school level science that is truly staggering.

This profound ignorance is further evidenced by the utterly counterfactual statement that there are only two options: Either the universe had a beginning, or it lasted forever.

That is a false dichotomy based on a Newtonian framework whereby time is an invariable constant unaffected by matter. This view has been utterly trumped by modern Einstenian Physics.

I'm sorry, I wish I could help you, but there is no way I can explain special relativity to you over the internet. I explained it as clearly as I could in my OP, and it clearly went waaay over your head.

Secondly your notion that arguments relating to the very existence of the universe have no impact on religion and apologetics betrays an ignorance of basic 5th grade level humanistic material, that is even more mind boggling than your ignorance of science.

What I would suggest is that you ask any of your friends with children if they have science books that their kids don't need anymore, and see if you can borrow them.

Good luck