Why Must There be a Beginning?

[Danmark]

Why is it so difficult for many to accept the concept that the universe (or existence) has always been? I understand that we are always looking for causes (first or otherwise) or for beginnings, but it does not seem necessary. Is the concept beyond the imagination of some? Are they unable to form this concept?
It seems that Christians accept the idea of something having no beginning since they accept this about God. But if 'god' can be an exception in their minds, why not the universe itself?

[William]

[Replying to post 16 by Danmark]

Assuming 'consciousness' has always existed is an even bigger leap of imagination.

So lets get this strait then. One is allowed to assume that the universe has always existed but not allowed to assume therefore that consciousness also has always existed in the same way?

Would you care to explain this assertion you have made?

[Walterbl]

Why is it so difficult for many to accept the concept that the universe (or existence) has always been?

The universe cannot be eternal because of the second law of thermodynamics. The usable energy of the universe is constantly decreasing. Entrophy is always increasing. If the universe had been around forever, entrophy would have already increased to a maximum. The heat death of the universe would have already happened.

I know that the notion of God "always been" is hard to understand. But the alternative is that everything came form nothing, which makes even less sense.

[Danmark]

Why is it so difficult for many to accept the concept that the universe (or existence) has always been?

The universe cannot be eternal because of the second law of thermodynamics. The usable energy of the universe is constantly decreasing. Entrophy is always increasing. If the universe had been around forever, entrophy would have already increased to a maximum. The heat death of the universe would have already happened.

I know that the notion of God "always been" is hard to understand. But the alternative is that everything came form nothing, which makes even less sense.

It is always interesting to find a post that destroys its own logic. You accept the notion that a 'god' has alway existed while in the same breath you claim it is impossible for something to have alway existed.

Even if we accept the notion of the 'big bang' what remains is that before time itself began for this universe, there was a 'singularity,' a point of infinite density and gravity, that existed before that event. You make a special pleading and speculate it is not just a 'god,' but your god. This is a claim without evidence, a speculation and nothing more.

[tam]

Peace to you!

Why is it so difficult for many to accept the concept that the universe (or existence) has always been?

The universe cannot be eternal because of the second law of thermodynamics. The usable energy of the universe is constantly decreasing. Entrophy is always increasing. If the universe had been around forever, entrophy would have already increased to a maximum. The heat death of the universe would have already happened.

I know that the notion of God "always been" is hard to understand. But the alternative is that everything came form nothing, which makes even less sense.

It is always interesting to find a post that destroys its own logic. You accept the notion that a 'god' has alway existed while in the same breath you claim it is impossible for something to have alway existed.

That is not what I understand he said from his post. Granted, I am no scientist, but it seems to me that he said there is a reason that the universe cannot have always been. I do not know if that reason is true or not (have not researched it), but if I am understanding his explanation correctly, he is saying:

1 - The usable energy of the universe is decreasing.

2 - That entrophy is always increasing (meaning the usable energy of the universe is constantly decreasing).

3 - At some point, if this usable energy is constantly decreasing, it will decrease to nothing.

4 - If the universe had been around forever, that (heat death of the universe) would already have happened.



So that whether one accepts that God has been around forever or not, this universe cannot have been around forever due to this phenomenon.




Am I missing something from that explanation?



Peace to you!

[wiploc]

That is not what I understand he said from his post. Granted, I am no scientist, but it seems to me that he said there is a reason that the universe cannot have always been. I do not know if that reason is true or not (have not researched it), but if I am understanding his explanation correctly, he is saying:

1 - The usable energy of the universe is decreasing.

2 - That entrophy is always increasing (meaning the usable energy of the universe is constantly decreasing).

3 - At some point, if this usable energy is constantly decreasing, it will decrease to nothing.

4 - If the universe had been around forever, that (heat death of the universe) would already have happened.



So that whether one accepts that God has been around forever or not, this universe cannot have been around forever due to this phenomenon.

I haven't read the posts you're responding to. I'm just responding to the argument as you represent it.

Suppose someone observed that someone is smoking a cigarette, and concluded that--based on the length of the original cigarette and the rate of burn--the universe can't be over five minutes old. Would you find that argument persuasive?

Or suppose someone argued that the tide coming in takes six hours, and it is halfway in, so the universe can't be more than three hours old?

Those arguments are worthless because things change. We don't know that the universe didn't exist before that cigarette started burning, or before that tide started coming in; and we also don't know that it didn't exist before entropy started increasing.

It's also worth noting that entropy doesn't always increase. It has a statistical tendency to increase. The more particles that are considered, the stronger this tendency to increase is. So big things, macroscopic things like planets, galaxies, or cups of coffee, are so very likely to increase their entropy that you can assume it will happen.

But little things are different. But little things are different, and the beginning of the big bang was little.