Did the universe begin to exist?

[Radagast]

Then what did you mean when you said, "if time is itself a part of the created cosmos then the universe has always existed"?

That was a slightly confusing statement by ebia, and I would not have used those precise words, but he did clarify what he meant:

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.

Needless to say, I agree with that.

 

[granpa]

Then what did you mean when you said, "if time is itself a part of the created cosmos then the universe has always existed"?

he meant that the universe has existed 'for all time' and that time began when the universe began

 

[elopez]

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.

Yes the statement was very confusing. And yes, I would agree with that too.

 

[elopez]

he meant that the universe has existed 'for all time' and that time began when the universe began

But that is nonsensical.

 

[Harry3142]

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.

According to what I've heard and read, hydrogen was there immediately following the Big Bang. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are different versions of that same scenario.

 

[Harry3142]

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.

Circa 1920 Albert Einstein made this statement upon learning that another scientist was trying to disprove his theory concerning gravity:

"Subtle is the Lord, but malicious he is not."

But when he was asked to explain his statement, his reply made it clear that he was not referring to a personal being:

"Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse."

Intelligence to him did not necessarily imply a Being who was intelligent, just as being malicious did not imply that there was a Being who was exhibiting these traits. In Einstein's view the mathematical formulae which had culminated in the universe as we observe it today were an example of intelligence in-and-of themselves. And this was especially true if those mathematical formulae had caused the universe to remain fixed and unchanging for an infinite period of time.

 

[Harry3142]

"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

As he matured Albert Einstein did become a deist. But that developed over some years' time. Initially, his 'God' was the mathematical formulae that he wrapped his theories around.

 

[ebia]

Then what did you mean when you said, "if time is itself a part of the created cosmos then the universe has always existed"?

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 recognises that time is finite backwards.

 

[elopez]

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.

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.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Time is only a construct used to speak of or examine change, and the beginning/termination of various motions.

Creation was the first change in reality; the only reality prior to creation was God.

elopez, I don't think ebia was claiming that the universe has always existed.

 

[elopez]

I don't think he was either, but that still doesn't clear the confusion of saying, "A better way of saying "the universe has always existed" is to say.." What does that mean?

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes, the universe did begin to exist at one point in history. In other words, it did have a beginning since God created it.

 

[ebia]

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.

What does "always" mean? Answer "for all of time"

If time is finite then "always" is finite; there is no eternal (in the sense of infinite time).

 

[granpa]

always = 'for all (finite) time'

nowhere does he say that time extends infinitely in both directions.

 

[Radagast]

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.

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.

 

[ebia]

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.

 

[Radagast]

Maybe the problem is that you're trying to describe something that doesn't exist. There is no before.

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.

 

[Tnmusicman]

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.

Because the available energy is being used up and there is no source of new energy, the universe could not have always existed. I think the answer to your question is that people claim the universe has always existed to get around God. If the universe had always existed then the theory is that God was not needed to create the universe and all of time began after the big bang. Of course,as a Christian I believe God created time and space and I also believe God exists outside of the parameters He set for us.I cant find any other reason why someone would claim the universe has always existed but I suppose there could be other reasons.

 

[ebia]

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.

I don't expect biblical language to try to be mathematically correct in ways it's authors couldn't understand.

But if time begins with creation there is no before.

 

[Sojourner1]

Mod Hat On​

​

​

​

Thread has been moved from General Theology to the Origins Theology Forum.

Origins Theology Forum: for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.

Mod Hat Off​

​

​

​