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.
Nonsense. Transcending space and time does not imply "uncaused", only "uncaused by anything in our universe." It definitely doesn't imply changeless nor enormously powerful (except perhaps relative to us).
Eitherway, Although i'd take a scientific answer over an unscientific one any day of the week, it seems to me that with these questions, it's proved that there are things that are totally impossible to know scientifically. I think it's a cop out to say "Science will figure it out eventually", it seems to me that the cosmological problem is fundamentally unanswerable. You can't answer the question with any finality, it is an infinite regress.
Also, theoretical physicsts are working on the problem as we speak. If it is impossible for science to figure these things out then someone should let these guys know.
The Cosmological Argument is nice and everything, but it assumes that the causal principle is true in cases where we have no reason to believe it's true.
Furthermore, once you admit of an exception to the principle, e.g. "God just exists," then it's perfectly rational to reply, "No, the universe just exists." (Thanks, Russell.)
So maybe I should go pantheistic? lol.
anyways, I used to argue because the universe is natural/temporal it can't be uncaused, so you need something unnatural and outside time to start it up.
I'm not saying their work is useless, you can still learn a lot of interesting things related to the big bang and cosmology... but you just can't ever fundamentally answer the question "why does anything exist", because it's an infinite regress...
say you find out what "caused" the big bang: but the next thing you need to figure out is what caused whatever caused the big bang... and then what caused that... ad infinitum.
When you walk on the Earth you never hit the end of the Earth. Does this mean that the Earth is infinite? What if the production of universes is the same, a closed loop?
But I do agree that there are inherent problems. At some point you may hit the ultimate and completely unsatisfactory answer, "That's just the way it is".
Anyway, Its my thought that all the energy and matter in the universe always existed. The big bang was an event to recycle the energy and and matter. Some day all the matter and energy will collide again causing another big bang. Is this a possible explanation?
From my understanding, sub-atomic particles will decay over time (protons, neutrons, electrons) and the universe will be devoid of all matter and energy. That is, if the current rate of accelerated expansion continues.
The whole "just so happened to arise from nothing" is a canard. If the universe came "from nothing," then it did so by virtue of a physical law or laws that made it such that it essentially had to happen. This is perfectly reasonable, given what we know of quantum mechanics, but is by no means certain. The universe as a whole could easily have existed for eternity as well, but then there must similarly be some fundamental reason why the universe has always existed. One then must ask where this fundamental law or laws came from, and the only reasonable answer is that there exists a fundamental, obscenely simple principle (one that is hopefully obviously true, or at least that there are some strong suggestions that it might be true). God doesn't work here, because God is massively, massively complex (moreso than anything God explains), and therefore utterly fails as any sort of explanation.Creation and Big Bang Cosmology
Dr. William Lane Craig
I don't have enough faith to believe that something just so happened to arise from nothing, nor that the universe itself is eternal.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that life is anything but fully natural. If you mean something like life is beautiful or wonderful or amazing or has some other such qualities, then, well, subjective determinations just don't have any bearing whatsoever upon the possible causes of life.There is more to life than its raw materials. There is something unique about life, something beyond the physical.
One then must ask where this fundamental law or laws came from, and the only reasonable answer is that there exists a fundamental, obscenely simple principle (one that is hopefully obviously true, or at least that there are some strong suggestions that it might be true).
I always thought of the universe as a closed loop. Hopefully one day we will prove this by making a telescope so powerful that we will see our own Galaxy.
always thought of the universe as a closed loop. Hopefully one day we will prove this by making a telescope so powerful that we will see our own Galaxy.
*fixed*
The obvious answer to this is turtles, all the way down.One interesting example of infinite regress actually being solved that I found was this:
1) Assume the earth is flat:
2) Things that would fall are held up by other things.
3) What holds up you? The ground
4) What holds up the ground? The underside of the earth
6) What holds up the underside of the earth? Pillars.
7) What holds up the pillars????
8) ???
Well, as I said, one might hope that the principle is self-explanatory. Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis is one such principle that serves as a candidate, as it's essentially a statement that everything that can exist does so, with a somewhat rigorous definition of what can exist. This sort of thinking seems to be right along the lines of where quantum mechanics is pointing, as in quantum mechanics if you take a look at what happens between points A and B where you take measurements, well, you find that everything that can happen between the two points does so.But where did this principle come from?
This is what I was referring to with "the ultimate and completely unsatisfactory answer of 'that is just the way it is'".
It reminds me of a book I read about the advancement of physics in the 20th century. Just before the discovery of quantum mechanics many physicists thought that they were close to discovering all there was to know in physics. But what if there really is a bottom to the well of knowledge? It's a strange paradox. Perhaps science is not the search for the right answers but the search for the right questions.
It's one that a lot of people seem to like, but it really doesn't hold up. First of all, it takes quite a bit of fine tuning to construct a set of parameters that cause the universe we observe to recollapse. It looks like it's just going to expand forever and, eventually, become nothing but empty space. A number of the things we observe have to be wrong for it to recollapse on itself.I always thought of the universe as a closed loop. Hopefully one day we will prove this by making a telescope so powerful that we will see our own universe.
Anyway, Its my thought that all the energy and matter in the universe always existed. The big bang was an event to recycle the energy and and matter. Some day all the matter and energy will collide again causing another big bang. Is this a possible explanation?
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?