Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then what did you mean when you said, "if time is itself a part of the created cosmos then the universe has always existed"?
ebia said:That is, there is no time when it hasn't existed. But it has a beginning; an instant when creation and time began. It's just that there is no "before" that.
Yes the statement was very confusing. And yes, I would agree with that too.That was a slightly confusing statement by ebia, and I would not have used those precise words, but he did clarify what he meant:
Needless to say, I agree with that.
But that is nonsensical.he meant that the universe has existed 'for all time' and that time began when the universe began
Are you sure? I understood that at the singularity no elements were in existence. Very soon after the singularity, loose quarks and leptons formed.
Protons (= hydrogen nuclei) only formed about one microsecond after the singularity. Those protons then combined with electrons to form hydrogen atoms about 380,000 years later.
That's interesting. I wasn't aware that Einstein was ever an atheist; I always assumed that he was just very quiet about his spiritual beliefs, which I can understand considering that being open about them is an easy way to discredit yourself in the scientific community. In one of my favorite quotes, he seems to show a reflection on the universe as having revealed a higher intelligence...
"It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature." (source)I might not be reading it correctly.
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
-Albert Einstein
As it turns out, he was a deist.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
-Albert Einstein
IFThen what did you mean when you said, "if time is itself a part of the created cosmos then the universe has always existed"?
I understand that there is no time without the universe. There is really just no way to accurately say there was no time 'before' time, but that is the fact that remains.IF
Time is part of the cosmos
THEN
there has been no time when the cosmos did not exist. There is no time without cosmos.
Endif.
The problem is that people acknowledge that time has a beginning - and then carry on with language that depends on there being such a thing as before that.
A better way of saying "the universe has always existed" is to say "at any point in time the universe exists". That doesn't make the universe infinite backwards in time. It recognizes that time is finite backwards.
elopez said:I understand that there is no time without the universe. There is really just no way to accurately say there was no time 'before' time, but that is the fact that remains.
Though, the one thing I still don't understand is why we are claiming the universe always has existed? That would indeed render not only an infinite universe but an eternal one, for we could say the same of God's eternalness: God has always existed, or at any point God exists.
The problem is that people acknowledge that time has a beginning - and then carry on with language that depends on there being such a thing as before that.
Radagast said:The problem is a lack of verb tenses for describing what God did "before" time was created.
Even "before" is the wrong word, but there's no obvious better one.
Maybe the problem is that you're trying to describe something that doesn't exist. There is no before.
I understand that there is no time without the universe. There is really just no way to accurately say there was no time 'before' time, but that is the fact that remains.
Though, the one thing I still don't understand is why we are claiming the universe always has existed? That would indeed render not only an infinite universe but an eternal one, for we could say the same of God's eternalness: God has always existed, or at any point God exists.
Radagast said:There certainly is creation by God, so I'm not trying to describe something that doesn't exist.
The word "before" isn't quite right, as I said, but "outside" doesn't quite work either.
The Bible uses "before," for lack of a better word: And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Colossians 1:17).
So does the Nicene Creed (to which we have both given assent): Begotten of the Father before all ages.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?