If science proved that the universe didn't have a beginning would you question your faith?

[nonbeliever314]

I ask this because clearly it states in the bible that God created the universe, which according to many Christians (William Lane Craig, etc) means that the universe had a first cause and a beginning. But if science proved it didn't have a beginning that "throws a wrench in the gears" so to speak. So if that did happen would you question your faith?

 

[Architeuthus]

If science proved that the universe didn't have a beginning

I can't see how that's possible.

Science can, in principle, prove that the universe had a beginning (e.g. by tracing the universe back to a state S that could have had no predecessor state), but I can't see how it could prove that the universe didn't have a beginning.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I can't see how that's possible.

Science can, in principle, prove that the universe had a beginning (e.g. by tracing the universe back to a state S that could have had no predecessor state), but I can't see how it could prove that the universe didn't have a beginning.

The Big Bang could have possibly just been a transition from some other pre-existing state.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I believe there is no beginning. We're in the very same moment from which there has always been. All that's happened is a shift in atom arrangement. It's trippy.

Also I'm a harbinger of death so my faith will never be shaken!

 

[Architeuthus]

The Big Bang could have possibly just been a transition from some other pre-existing state.

I said "Science can, in principle, prove that the universe had a beginning." I didn't say that current science had done so (although the evidence so far is very strongly supportive of the idea).

 

[True Scotsman]

The Big Bang could have possibly just been a transition from some other pre-existing state.

On my understanding of the BBT that's exactly what it states; that the universe expanded from a hotter and much, much denser state. It never states that the universe popped into existence from nothing. How the the universe came to be like it is now is a question for science, but however it happened it was for sure a causal process and since all actions are caused by entities, causality presupposes existence. Asking what caused everything to exist commits the fallacy of the stolen concept by asking for a cause in the absence of existence. So existence must be eternal. Since there can be no infinite regress of causes, whatever the fundamental building blocks of existence are, they must have always existed.

 

[angelavoltaire]

Hello, It is impossible for me to answer to your question because it is not clear. What do you mean by: question your faith? What is faith?
To My definition of "faith" one does not question his faith, because faith it is a feeling expérienced physically. A person questions his ideas, his béliefs, things he does not know for sure. The faith might even help someone to question everything one has be taught to be the "truth"
the faith is knowing otherwise is not faith but ideas and beliefs. When i taste an Apple i know the taste. If i read in a book how an Apple tastes than it is a différent thing.

 

[Architeuthus]

but however it happened it was for sure a causal process

That's precisely what Hawking denies in his famous book, of course.

So existence must be eternal

A somewhat dubious assertion.

whatever the fundamental building blocks of existence are, they must have always existed.

Equally dubious. Something may have existed that produced "the fundamental building blocks of existence."

 

[angelavoltaire]

That's precisely what Hawking denies in his famous book, of course.



A somewhat dubious assertion.



Equally dubious. Something may have existed that produced "the fundamental building blocks of existence."

How it can be dubious that the " fondamental building blocks of existence have always existed " if you are saying the same Thing, but in a différent way? You are saying: something May have existed that produced... So does this "something" not always exist? How this "something" produced if it did not exist itself? It means that this something always existed?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

That's precisely what Hawking denies in his famous book, of course.

What does this quote say?

A somewhat dubious assertion.

Not entirely. It's actually extremely plausible.

 

[Architeuthus]

How it can be dubious that the " fondamental building blocks of existence have always existed " if you are saying the same Thing, but in a différent way? You are saying: something May have existed that produced... So does this "something" not always exist? How this "something" produced if it did not exist itself? It means that this something always existed?

Something may have eternally existed, but that something need not be a "fundamental building block," as long as it produced "fundamental building blocks."

 

[angelavoltaire]

Something may have eternally existed, but that something need not be a "fundamental building block," as long as it produced "fundamental building blocks."

i know it is not easy to express with words concepts that even our minds have difficulty grasping due to their complexity and it might become a game of words at one point. So whatever someone might want to call this "something" that produced existence, this something has to be fundamental to existence.

This something was it créated by another something or was it selfcreated or was it always there without need to be created?! Does our définition and perception of Time, limit our understanding of the creation ?!

Why do we have this éternal need to understand this "something" as if it is crucial to our existence?! too many rhetorical questions for a thursday morning

 

[Architeuthus]

What does this quote say?

Hawking suggests that "if the universe is completely self-contained, with no singularities or boundaries" (and he applies a mathematical trick to make that the case), then a cause (such as God) is not actually necessary. "What need, then, for a Creator?" as he (rhetorically) asks.

Not entirely. It's actually extremely plausible.

There's a difference between "plausible" and "must be true."

 

[True Scotsman]

How it can be dubious that the " fondamental building blocks of existence have always existed " if you are saying the same Thing, but in a différent way? You are saying: something May have existed that produced... So does this "something" not always exist? How this "something" produced if it did not exist itself? It means that this something always existed?

Yes this was my point. You have to start with something that is eternally there because non existent things don't cause anything. It makes sense to start with the totality of what we know exists rather than go outside of it to look for a cause. If you do that then you haven't solved any problems because what caused this other thing. The whole idea of asking about a cause of existence as I have already said is fallacious because it uses the concept "cause" while denying its genetic root, "existence".

 

[Architeuthus]

i know it is not easy to express with words concepts that even our minds have difficulty grasping due to their complexity

Indeed; but one must still endeavour to use language with precision.

What I was trying to say was that it doesn't follow that the "building blocks" of the current universe (say, photons) have always existed, as long as something capable of producing photons (or something capable of producing something capable of producing photons, etc.) has always existed.

 

[Architeuthus]

It makes sense to start with the totality of what we know exists rather than go outside of it to look for a cause.

It's one option. Not the one best supported by the evidence.

And there are some problems with an eternal physical universe. It seems to require that the universe be cyclic, because if the universe is tending to some end-state (say, maximum entropy), it would already have reached that end state infinitely long ago.

Philosophically speaking, infinite causal chains are also a little messy.

The whole idea of asking about a cause of existence as I have already said is fallacious because it uses the concept "cause" while denying its genetic root, "existence".

Yes, but you can still have A being the cause of the existence of B.

 

[True Scotsman]

Something may have eternally existed, but that something need not be a "fundamental building block," as long as it produced "fundamental building blocks."

This is incoherent. If something produced the fundamental building blocks then that thing would necessarily be more fundamental. There can't be an infinite regress of fundamental building blocks. Whatever the fundamental building blocks turn out to be, whether strings or quantum loops or something we can't even imagine, they must have existed in the first place to cause anything. Since we know that existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness, i.e. it is more fundamental (this is perceptually self evident), then whatever this first thing was it wasn't a form of consciousness. Therefore existence, as a whole has always existed.

 

[Architeuthus]

This is incoherent.

No.

If something produced the fundamental building blocks then that thing would necessarily be more fundamental.

Yes.

Whatever the fundamental building blocks turn out to be, whether strings or quantum loops or something we can't even imagine, they must have existed in the first place to cause anything.

No, as long as whatever existed could produce "strings or quantum loops." The pre-existing thing need not have been a "set of building blocks."

Since we know that existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness, i.e. it is more fundamental (this is perceptually self evident), then whatever this first thing was it wasn't a form of consciousness.

Really? We know this? This is self evident?

I'll give you points for self-confidence, at least.

 

[Alithis]

I ask this because clearly it states in the bible that God created the universe, which according to many Christians (William Lane Craig, etc) means that the universe had a first cause and a beginning. But if science proved it didn't have a beginning that "throws a wrench in the gears" so to speak. So if that did happen would you question your faith?

nope it would not even come close to making me question my faith in the Lord Jesus .
scientific observable fact is changeable. it can be perverted from truth or realigned to truth . the lord Jesus is truth.

 

[True Scotsman]

It's one option. Not the one best supported by the evidence.

And there are some problems with an eternal physical universe. It seems to require that the universe be cyclic, because if the universe is tending to some end-state (say, maximum entropy), it would already have reached that end state infinitely long ago.

I think the problem is we don't really have a unified theory yet. Loop quantum gravity, which shows some promise, posits that the universe was contracting before it expanded and that it never reached the point of a singularity. It got to a certain size and then "bounced" and at the bounce the entropy resets. From what I've read and watched, it does not say that the universe will necessarily contract again. I am not a physicist and am only an interested layman. So I could be completely off and feel free to correct me. I'm speaking from the standpoint of philosophy.

I think also a distinction needs to be made between "eternal" and "infinite". Eternal, as I inform it, would mean existing for all of time. So I think the universe could be finite and eternal, i.e. there was no time before anything existed and there will be no time when nothing exists. So even if time were finite, there would have been something at time zero. From my understanding of the BBT or now as some refer to it, the Big Bounce Theory, this is what is posited. The Big Bang Theory begins with the expansion of the universe and the singularity is sort of a place holder. Now with Loop Quantum Gravity, we have a theory of what existed before the expansion, i.e, a "planck star". But please correct me if I'm wrong.

Philosophically speaking, infinite causal chains are also a little messy.

Agreed. There had to be something to cause the first action and that something had to be uncaused, i.e. eternal.

Yes, but you can still have A being the cause of the existence of B.

Yes but if you point to something that existed to explain existence, then you haven't made any progress in explaining existence. That's why the question what caused existence* is fallaciously complex.

* I use the concept "existence" to denote the sum total of everything that exists. It is synonymous with "universe" as I use it. "nature" is existence as seen from a certain perspective: the realm of entities and their attributes acting and interacting according to natural laws and their natures.

Well that's it. Off to bed.