Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evolution Lesson
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 75727902" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>If cosmologists say it had a beginning, what they mean is that the universe <em>as we know</em> it had a beginning. We simply don't know what happened prior to a very short time after the big bang. I think the consensus is that the big bang was an event in some prior universe or multiverse. There are a number of hypotheses compatible with fundamental physics that could plausibly produce a universe like ours.</p><p></p><p>The current projection is heat-death (thermodynamic equilibrium). But whether there is heat-death, or a 'big crunch' or a 'big rip', there's no reason why universe should not continue indefinitely - although not necessarily in the same form. By analogy, when you burn a log, its matter & energy change form, they don't disappear.</p><p></p><p>What is your argument that the universe does not have necessary existence? it exists, it's not contingent, so it necessarily exists; IOW 'all that is' necessarily exists.</p><p></p><p>Yeah; that's neither a description, an explanation, nor an argument, it's just a pompous empty claim.</p><p></p><p>The universe 'always exists still' (odd phrasing!). But what do you mean by 'imperishable'? - I asked you earlier what you meant by 'incorruptible' and you haven't yet answered.</p><p></p><p>You seem to have embellished necessary existence from the simple idea that something has it if it is not contingent or its non-existence would be impossible, with other, ill-defined, properties.</p><p></p><p>It seems to me that either existence is necessary or it isn't... in what way does or could 'necessary existence' fall short of '<em>real</em> necessary existence'?</p><p></p><p>That is incoherent. You could say that the universe <em>as we know it</em> was created and will cease to exist, but that's like saying the Taj Mahal was created and will cease to exist; we know that the universe we are familiar with is a just a spatially and temporally finite part of the greater universe. A universe that is eternal, <em>in some form or other,</em> is consistent with current physics and current observations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 75727902, member: 241055"] If cosmologists say it had a beginning, what they mean is that the universe [I]as we know[/I] it had a beginning. We simply don't know what happened prior to a very short time after the big bang. I think the consensus is that the big bang was an event in some prior universe or multiverse. There are a number of hypotheses compatible with fundamental physics that could plausibly produce a universe like ours. The current projection is heat-death (thermodynamic equilibrium). But whether there is heat-death, or a 'big crunch' or a 'big rip', there's no reason why universe should not continue indefinitely - although not necessarily in the same form. By analogy, when you burn a log, its matter & energy change form, they don't disappear. What is your argument that the universe does not have necessary existence? it exists, it's not contingent, so it necessarily exists; IOW 'all that is' necessarily exists. Yeah; that's neither a description, an explanation, nor an argument, it's just a pompous empty claim. The universe 'always exists still' (odd phrasing!). But what do you mean by 'imperishable'? - I asked you earlier what you meant by 'incorruptible' and you haven't yet answered. You seem to have embellished necessary existence from the simple idea that something has it if it is not contingent or its non-existence would be impossible, with other, ill-defined, properties. It seems to me that either existence is necessary or it isn't... in what way does or could 'necessary existence' fall short of '[I]real[/I] necessary existence'? That is incoherent. You could say that the universe [I]as we know it[/I] was created and will cease to exist, but that's like saying the Taj Mahal was created and will cease to exist; we know that the universe we are familiar with is a just a spatially and temporally finite part of the greater universe. A universe that is eternal, [I]in some form or other,[/I] is consistent with current physics and current observations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evolution Lesson
Top
Bottom