The cosmological argument

[Jig]

Why couldn't it be eternal if it was finite? Eternal means it had no beginning (or no end, or both).

How can something finite have an infinite property, such as being eternal?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How can something finite have an infinite property, such as being eternal?

Because a thing can be infinite in some ways and finite in others. Infinitely long curves can nonetheless bind a finite area.

 

[Jig]

Because a thing can be infinite in some ways and finite in others. Infinitely long curves can nonetheless bind a finite area.

So you're saying something can be both finite and infinite? I'm not sure I understand.

I believe time was caused/created. If time was not caused/created at some point in the past that would mean an infinite amount of time must have elapsed BEFORE this very moment I'm having on my computer. But it is impossible for an infinite amount of time to fully elapse.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you're saying something can be both finite and infinite? I'm not sure I understand.

'Infinite' and 'finite' are properties of a quantity. Since something can have several quantities (length, area, charge, duration, energy, etc), it can be infinite in some regards and finite in others.

I believe time was caused/created. If time was not caused/created at some point in the past that would mean an infinite amount of time must have elapsed BEFORE this very moment I'm having on my computer. But it is impossible for an infinite amount of time to fully elapse.

Why is it? It is impossible for an infinite amount of time to elapse with only a finite number of finite steps, but we quite clearly don't have a finite number of finite steps: we aren't travelling from A to B.

If the duration between A and B is infinite, then it would be impossible to start at A and get to B with a finite number of finite steps. But since we're not starting at any A (in our hypothetical, there is no start at all), we're just here. And no matter when 'now' is, there will always be an infinite amount of 'past'.

Or, think of it this way: if there is no start, then time has been elapsing for infinity. So we can get from 'infinity ago' to 'now' because an infinite amount of time has elapsed.

 

[Chesterton]

If the duration between A and B is infinite, then it would be impossible to start at A and get to B with a finite number of finite steps. But since we're not starting at any A (in our hypothetical, there is no start at all), we're just here. And no matter when 'now' is, there will always be an infinite amount of 'past'.

But reality isn't hypothetical, and there was a start at an A.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But reality isn't hypothetical, and there was a start at an A.

How do you know?

 

[Chesterton]

How do you know?

It's what the scientists say.

 

[Nooj]

It's what the scientists say.

Where do they say that?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's what the scientists say.

I think if you prodded them hard enough they'd give in and admit that we don't actually know. It's a popular misconception that the universe actually began with the Big Bang, that there was no 'before'. And, annoyingly, a lot of scientists seem to believe it.

It's a very popular misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. The truth is that we simply don't know what happened 13.5 billion years ago.

 

[Chesterton]

Where do they say that?

On TV. Duh, where do you think I get my science?

I think if you prodded them hard enough they'd give in and admit that we don't actually know. It's a popular misconception that the universe actually began with the Big Bang, that there was no 'before'. And, annoyingly, a lot of scientists seem to believe it.

It's a very popular misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. The truth is that we simply don't know what happened 13.5 billion years ago.

Well you have good evidence that suggests it happened. I don't know at what point a hypothesis becomes a theory becomes a fact. Couldn't you say the same thing about the evolution of life: there's good evidence it happened, but we weren't there to see it, so we simply don't know?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well you have good evidence that suggests it happened.

We do?
We have good evidence for the Big Bang. We have good evidence that the universe has been expanding for ~13.5 billion years from a very hot, very dense, very small state.

But we don't know where the universe came from. We know what it was like 13.5 billion years ago, but that's as far back as we can probe.

I don't know at what point a hypothesis becomes a theory becomes a fact. Couldn't you say the same thing about the evolution of life: there's good evidence it happened, but we weren't there to see it, so we simply don't know?

That we weren't there to see it isn't an issue with science. We aren't there to see a lot of things, but that's why we have evidence. The evidence, if you like, was there.

The evidence for evolution implies the existence of a universal common ancestor, but that tells us nothing about how it got there. The evidence implies the universe is at least 3.5 billion years old (since that's when the ancestor lived), but it's illogical to assume the universe began then.
Likewise, the evidence shows the universe to be at least 13.5 billion years old. It could, for all we know, be much older.

 

[Chesterton]

We do?
We have good evidence for the Big Bang. We have good evidence that the universe has been expanding for ~13.5 billion years from a very hot, very dense, very small state.

But we don't know where the universe came from. We know what it was like 13.5 billion years ago, but that's as far back as we can probe.

It's said that time and space did not exist in that small, dense state. If that's true, I'd take the beginning of time and space to be the beginning of the universe, wouldn't you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's said that time and space did not exist in that small, dense state. If that's true, I'd take the beginning of time and space to be the beginning of the universe, wouldn't you?

Indeed I would. But there is no indication that time and space began 13.5 billion years ago. The universe has been expanding from a very small state to its current state, so it is tempting to infer that spacetime is something like a cone, with a point at t=0 and expanding outward with time (as you go 'down' the cone). But then again, it could be an hour glass...

 

[Chesterton]

But then again, it could be an hour glass...

Is there evidence for that?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is there evidence for that?

Nope.

 

[Chesterton]

Nope.

Whoops, apparently I forgot we were in the Philosophy forum.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Whoops, apparently I forgot we were in the Philosophy forum.

"Evidence? In my philosophy?"

It's more likely than you might think.

 

[Illandur]

Well you have good evidence that suggests it happened. I don't know at what point a hypothesis becomes a theory becomes a fact. Couldn't you say the same thing about the evolution of life: there's good evidence it happened, but we weren't there to see it, so we simply don't know?

This theory/fact confusion is a very common misunderstanding in science. A theory, in science, is more important than a fact. Facts are observations about reality. They are a dime a dozen. What theories seek to do is explain those facts. They explain why things happen and develop a mechanism which can be used to predict other facts.

Evolution is both fact and theory. There is an observable fact that variations occur at the genetic level. The theory provides a mechanism which explains the diversity of life we find on this planet.

Lastly, just because we are not physically there to observe a phenomena, does not mean we cannot understand what has/is taking place. In actuality, evolution is a poor example of this because we have observed many instances of speciation (sorry, cannot post link, just google "observed instances of speciation" and there are relevant links gallore). We cannot physically go to the sun and see that the cores of stars are gigantic nuclear fusion reactors, turning millions of tons of hydrogen into helium every second, but we can use the evidence we have available to us to discover and explain these natural phenomena.


Now to add something: The reason why we are, as of yet, unsure as to what happened t=0, if it ever did, is due to the fact that, before a certain point (10^-43 seconds after the initial expansion of the universe), the four fundamental forces were one, and to hypothesize on what would occur under such situations would require a unified theory (ie. quantum theory of gravity).

Observationally, we can only "see" back to the microwave background radiation of the universe, approximately 380 thousand years after the "big bang" because at this point, the universe was opaque. However, this observation was made after the initial development of the big bang theory, and the theory predicted the existence of the background radiation itself... very stuff.

 

[Inviolable]

I'd say the Universe before its Big Bang period was that which existed.

Which was?

 

[Chesterton]

Which was?

He fully explained it was "that which existed". Can't you read?