[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Time itself is really an imaginary concept to begin with. It’s a useful tool to label the way we experience existence. Nothing more. You cannot apply it to abstract concepts like origin and infinity because it simply does not apply.[/quote]
Time is a measurement of change.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.
Where do these particles come from?
If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.
Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia
An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to self regulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.
You call that God instead.
[/quote]
No, he said when you remove all matter and create a void, something is always there. With true randomness there is no consistency. Seemingly random can satisfy a scientific condition when studying something else, but the particles popping in and out of a void certainly do it for a reason and come from somewhere. Further, a “void” isn’t nothingness. It is a something, it occupies space and things occur in it in time. Lastly, it is a consistently replicatable effect which means it’s not random, just not understood. Given the effects of polarity in the EPR paradox, I don’t actually find this to far fetched.
Ok, so now you have an expanding singularity, that doesn’t have creative properties? What is it then?
Now you have three separate things going on. An ever expanding singularity that has no definition, it just is? Then you have a chaotic system and a self regulation aspect that is random but controls this chaotic system?
You don’t see how you just painted yourself in to a corner?
Where did the chaotic system come from? How did it’s self regulation pop into existance? What’s the singularity then got to do with any of it?[/quote]
I have this feeling again that we’re talking about different issues here pat. You go off on an idea i wasn’t talking about thinking it refutes the idea i was talking about. Your first paragraph didn’t adress my post, or at least, i don’t think it does.
Why do you think the expanding singularity needs creative properties?
Self-organising systems in chaos does not control chaos. Eventually the organised system will return to chaos. You seem to translate anything i say through the concept of a divine creator.
The universe exists, beit in the form of a singularity or fullyfledged, eternally. It knows no beginning, no maker; it just is.
Just like your God that always existed, just simply sans God.
The God-myth is unnecessary to explain the existence of the universe.
[/quote]
Your just not thinking through this it seems.
Where did this singularity come from, how did it come into existence? How does organization come from chaos with out cause? Please explain. No really, actually explain don’t dodge and don’t give me an hour long movie that I don’t have time to watch.
If said singularity is responsible for all that exists, how then does it not have creative properties?
“Self-organising systems in chaos” ← Did you really think about this statement?
If an organized system arises out of chaos, and then goes back to chaos, then guess what? There is nothing chaotic about it. It’s just not understood. Further, the accordion universe theory is one theory and not necessarily well substantiated. There is no such evidence of anything like that. It is a possibility and that’s it, one of many. Everything that exists is contingent upon something else for it’s existence. Accordion universe still came from something or somewhere.
It still boils down to something from something or something from nothing. You vote for something from nothing which requires randomness and chaos to exist, but there is no eviedence anywhere in the universe of such randomness. There’s lots of evidence of order and causation. I side with the more obvious. Believing in a Prime Mover is no more whacky then saying that everything comes from nothing, randomness and that shit just ‘is’ without the slightest shred of evidence for such a system.
Bullshit, show me one thing, anything that just ‘is’, and good luck finding it.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You didn’t explain away the randomness in my post either.
And swole? Randomness is unpredictability. Its just when you phrase it as the latter, you subtly infer that it ultimately can be broken down as deterministic.
The whole of quantum mechanics is based on the random nature of particles at the subatomic level.
Of course anyone can say “in the future, im confident that science will prove me and my deterministic ideas about the universe right”. I’m never one to say never, who really knows? But if you are scientifically inclined, all the evidence points towards randomness being an inherent property of the universe.
The double slit experiment is fascinating, because it neatly demonstrates nearly every aspect of quantum mechanics, and the confusion it causes.
And get this, not only atoms and particles make interference patterns. Fullerene molecules have been shown to cause interference patterns too. That means that WHOLE MOLECULES ARE PASSING THROUGH BOTH SLITS AT THE SAME TIME. Get your head round that one.[/quote]
Randomness is ‘without cause’ not “Not enough info to make a prediction” those are two very different things. Meaning, if you knew all the factors in a given event, you should be able to predict reliably whats going to happen. In a random world, you can know everything about a given event, and still something else all together happens for no reason.
The double-slit experiment is fascinating, but I can make a prediction as to what is going to happen. An interference pattern will emerge if you shoot enough electrons at it. I also know where they are going, it’s going to hit the background. Two things I can reliably predict in a quantum experiment. Now as to the behaviour or individual electrons, I don’t know but they will hit that background somewhere.
Further, what we know is that there is more going on then we can currently measure. That doesn’t make it random, just not understood.
Why I am saying it’s not random is because you can predict what’s going to happen when you replicate the double-slit experiment. It does it reliably and every time. Not understanding the quantum level behavior doesn’t make anything random. After all it’s still quite a new field of study. I am hoping the Hadron collider will shed some light becuase I do find it fascinating.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Time itself is really an imaginary concept to begin with. It’s a useful tool to label the way we experience existence. Nothing more. You cannot apply it to abstract concepts like origin and infinity because it simply does not apply.[/quote]
Time is a measurement of change.[/quote]
No. Change is a measurement of change. Time exists in that same since a meter does. It is a quantification of a component of existence. But a meter of a second doesn’t exist in and of itself. It’s really just a concept.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I have this feeling again that we’re talking about different issues here pat. You go off on an idea i wasn’t talking about thinking it refutes the idea i was talking about. Your first paragraph didn’t adress my post, or at least, i don’t think it does.
Why do you think the expanding singularity needs creative properties?
Self-organising systems in chaos does not control chaos. Eventually the organised system will return to chaos. You seem to translate anything i say through the concept of a divine creator.
The universe exists, beit in the form of a singularity or fullyfledged, eternally. It knows no beginning, no maker; it just is.
Just like your God that always existed, just simply sans God.
The God-myth is unnecessary to explain the existence of the universe.
[/quote]
Your just not thinking through this it seems.
Where did this singularity come from, how did it come into existence? How does organization come from chaos with out cause? Please explain. No really, actually explain don’t dodge and don’t give me an hour long movie that I don’t have time to watch.
If said singularity is responsible for all that exists, how then does it not have creative properties?
“Self-organising systems in chaos” ← Did you really think about this statement?
If an organized system arises out of chaos, and then goes back to chaos, then guess what? There is nothing chaotic about it. It’s just not understood. Further, the accordion universe theory is one theory and not necessarily well substantiated. There is no such evidence of anything like that. It is a possibility and that’s it, one of many. Everything that exists is contingent upon something else for it’s existence. Accordion universe still came from something or somewhere.
It still boils down to something from something or something from nothing. You vote for something from nothing which requires randomness and chaos to exist, but there is no eviedence anywhere in the universe of such randomness. There’s lots of evidence of order and causation. I side with the more obvious. Believing in a Prime Mover is no more whacky then saying that everything comes from nothing, randomness and that shit just ‘is’ without the slightest shred of evidence for such a system.
Bullshit, show me one thing, anything that just ‘is’, and good luck finding it.[/quote]
I can answer questions with question too:
Where did God come from? How did God come into existence? Why is only God able to have always existed, and not the universe?
Why do you feel the need to create an underlying cause for the universe?
I’m not saying something came from nothing: i’m saying something came from something and that something always existed. There was no beginning, there’s just eternally this. I’m also not saying you’re whacky for believing in a prime mover, but simply that it’s unnecessary.
The rules you apply to your god can also be applied to the universe.
Perhaps it’s that simple.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m still not getting why you are so willing to accept the eternal existence of a hypothetical supernatural being, but deny the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. Can you explain?[/quote]
I do not deny either actually. It’s the problem of contingency. Everything that exists has it’s basis in something else. Be that in or out of a space/time continuum.
Now we know certain things. That this current instance of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, has a center, a mass and a size (an ever changing one, but a size). Whether the whole thing will turn in to a giant black hole and collapse on itself, I don’t know. What I do know is that everything that exists physically or metaphysically, has properties and these properties have origin. As you strip these properties, then you get to what something really is.
Let’s take an example from Plato’s Forms. Think of a triangle. Now this triangle you are thinking of has properties, yet it doesn’t exist physically and does not exist in time. You mental triangle isn’t your creation it is your discovery, but like a physical triangle it has angles and sides, it must or it’s not a triangle. Can you see it? It will never move, change or age in any way. It will always be there for you to discover.
Where did the angles come from? Where did the sides come from? What about it’s color, size, etc. Where did it come from, your brain? No, your brain cannot make a damn thing. It can only discover and manipulate.
We can drill down infinitely on this triangle. It has infinite points.
The question is what makes it what it is and where does it come from?
I chose a metaphysical object because time is not a factor, yet it exists, has properties and origin. It exists infinitely, but culminates into a finite object.
People see physical things and metaphysical things as different, but I don’t. Every physical object has metaphysical components, therefore not only are they related, but things that are physical cannot exist with out the metaphysical, not so the other way around.
You can’t build a motor cycle out of a box of parts with out a plan.
Bottom line is this, all that exists has components that are infinite, or are time independent if you will. But yet they all have origin and when you come across something where you cannot ask where it came from or why it exists, there you have found God.
Everything is related and it all rolls up…
[/quote]
The triangle I’m thinking of disappears when I die. It’s a product of my brain, like every other cognitive object I create. That doesn’t make it metaphysical, any more than a computation being done by a computer is metaphysical.
Just so I’m clear, it sounds like you believe matter and energy have always existed? If that is the case, there is no such thing as a first cause, because eternity stretches in both directions.
[/quote]
Not really. You can no longer perceive it, but the entity is still there. This is all about epistemology. Once you get that it’s very understandable. Like a computer your brain cannot produce an original thought. Go ahead and try, think of a color that doesn’t exist and isn’t comprised of other colors. Or any thought that isn’t a culmination of other thoughts, feelings, or experiences, i.e. completely unique. You cannot do it, no one can. A computer cannot postulate on the metaphysical and is useless with out people.
I don’t see evidence of an ever existing universe but I do not deny it’s a possibility. Even if it is, it doesn’t solve the contingency problem. Everything, that exists is contingent upon something else. When you have hit upon that which is not contingent, you have found God. It’s mathematical really.[/quote]
What do you mean “the entity is still there”? We’re talking about a mental representation existing solely in my brain. When my brain dies, that specific mental representation dies along with it. Others might have their own representation, but that is different from my representation.
Contingency doesn’t become a problem when you acknowledge that the universe has always existed. Definitionally, there is no first cause because there is no first, period. [/quote]
Key word you used “representation” which is not the object itself. And how do you know that I cannot think of the same triangle as you? Second, a thought has at least two components. The thought is the container, the object of the thought is the metaphysical object. Certainly, my mental triangle and your mental triangles share properties. How then could it be all your own.
You don’t understand contingency. They are still dependent even if infinate. Look at light, light has a source, but has no time.[/quote]
There’s nothing metaphysical about it. If we both see a triangle, we create a mental construct of it. The commonality is the triangle itself, but our mental representation of it disappears when our brain dies.
I didn’t say there was no contingency, only that contingency is no longer a problem when you acknowledge that matter and energy have always existed. There is no beginning, so obviously there is no first cause.[/quote]
Yes there is, I am losing you…
This is the only thing Plato ever did that was worth while, but it’s awful important.
We don’t create a representation of triangles in our brains, we had to know what a triangle was first before. With out that “form”, you could never conceive it. Further all “forms” of triangle already exist, you can’t invent it, you can only discover it. Somebody else can conceivably discover the same triangle. Whether your dead or not.
Yes contingency is still a problem, because it all came from something, somewhere, etc. Every thing that exists has one thing in common with everything else in the universe, it came from something. This exists in a eternal universe as well. In a regress you remove properties to get to the ‘core’ of what something is. Eventually you run out of properties, that is why you cannot have an infinite regress, you run out of things to regress from and into.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You didn’t explain away the randomness in my post either.
And swole? Randomness is unpredictability. Its just when you phrase it as the latter, you subtly infer that it ultimately can be broken down as deterministic.
The whole of quantum mechanics is based on the random nature of particles at the subatomic level.
Of course anyone can say “in the future, im confident that science will prove me and my deterministic ideas about the universe right”. I’m never one to say never, who really knows? But if you are scientifically inclined, all the evidence points towards randomness being an inherent property of the universe.
The double slit experiment is fascinating, because it neatly demonstrates nearly every aspect of quantum mechanics, and the confusion it causes.
And get this, not only atoms and particles make interference patterns. Fullerene molecules have been shown to cause interference patterns too. That means that WHOLE MOLECULES ARE PASSING THROUGH BOTH SLITS AT THE SAME TIME. Get your head round that one.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know that I’ve taken a position here as being a determinist. I just am not convinced that the unpredictability of quantum mechanics is the same as pure randomness. I’m certainly in over my head on the topic, though.
I’m racking my brain trying to remember, but I read somewhere the position that unpredictability at the quantum level is a function of observation and not of the actual nature of quantum particles. So, while we may not be able to observe any predictable outcomes at the quantum level, this does not mean they are not there. And to conclude that because we can not observe it it does not exist is a bit of a stretch, in the presence of predictability in the system.
[/quote]
Determinism is another topic all together. I don’t think your a determinist…Nice post though.
[quote]Fezzik wrote:
Black holes only decay when the creation of radiation outpaces the rate at which they swallow mass, so it ends up being true only for very small black holes. Of course this is theoretical because hawkings radiation hasn’t been observed and I don’t even think a small black hole has been observed either.[/quote]
That’s another theory…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Time itself is really an imaginary concept to begin with. It’s a useful tool to label the way we experience existence. Nothing more. You cannot apply it to abstract concepts like origin and infinity because it simply does not apply.[/quote]
Time is a measurement of change.[/quote]
No. Change is a measurement of change. Time exists in that same since a meter does. It is a quantification of a component of existence. But a meter of a second doesn’t exist in and of itself. It’s really just a concept.[/quote]
I agree with Fletch here. Time is actually a relative measurement of movement / change. It is a quantitative measure.
You don’t run out of things to regress into if you go back forever.
If your god has no beginning, it is equally (and in my opinion far more) plausible that energy and matter have no beginning.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I have this feeling again that we’re talking about different issues here pat. You go off on an idea i wasn’t talking about thinking it refutes the idea i was talking about. Your first paragraph didn’t adress my post, or at least, i don’t think it does.
Why do you think the expanding singularity needs creative properties?
Self-organising systems in chaos does not control chaos. Eventually the organised system will return to chaos. You seem to translate anything i say through the concept of a divine creator.
The universe exists, beit in the form of a singularity or fullyfledged, eternally. It knows no beginning, no maker; it just is.
Just like your God that always existed, just simply sans God.
The God-myth is unnecessary to explain the existence of the universe.
[/quote]
Your just not thinking through this it seems.
Where did this singularity come from, how did it come into existence? How does organization come from chaos with out cause? Please explain. No really, actually explain don’t dodge and don’t give me an hour long movie that I don’t have time to watch.
If said singularity is responsible for all that exists, how then does it not have creative properties?
“Self-organising systems in chaos” ← Did you really think about this statement?
If an organized system arises out of chaos, and then goes back to chaos, then guess what? There is nothing chaotic about it. It’s just not understood. Further, the accordion universe theory is one theory and not necessarily well substantiated. There is no such evidence of anything like that. It is a possibility and that’s it, one of many. Everything that exists is contingent upon something else for it’s existence. Accordion universe still came from something or somewhere.
It still boils down to something from something or something from nothing. You vote for something from nothing which requires randomness and chaos to exist, but there is no eviedence anywhere in the universe of such randomness. There’s lots of evidence of order and causation. I side with the more obvious. Believing in a Prime Mover is no more whacky then saying that everything comes from nothing, randomness and that shit just ‘is’ without the slightest shred of evidence for such a system.
Bullshit, show me one thing, anything that just ‘is’, and good luck finding it.[/quote]
I can answer questions with question too:
Where did God come from? How did God come into existence? Why is only God able to have always existed, and not the universe?
Why do you feel the need to create an underlying cause for the universe?
I’m not saying something came from nothing: i’m saying something came from something and that something always existed. There was no beginning, there’s just eternally this. I’m also not saying you’re whacky for believing in a prime mover, but simply that it’s unnecessary.
The rules you apply to your god can also be applied to the universe.
Perhaps it’s that simple.
[/quote]
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Time itself is really an imaginary concept to begin with. It’s a useful tool to label the way we experience existence. Nothing more. You cannot apply it to abstract concepts like origin and infinity because it simply does not apply.[/quote]
Time is a measurement of change.[/quote]
No. Change is a measurement of change. Time exists in that same since a meter does. It is a quantification of a component of existence. But a meter of a second doesn’t exist in and of itself. It’s really just a concept.[/quote]
I agree with Fletch here. Time is actually a relative measurement of movement / change. It is a quantitative measure.[/quote]
A point does not exist in the material word. 0 dims.
a line (read length) does not exist in the material world. 1 dim.
Time itself does not exist in the material world. Also being only 1 dimension.
Space-time, the basic canvas of existence exists as a whole. Length, width, depth, and time are not dividable, stand alone building blocks of existence. They are all really the same stuff and related to each other. They do not physically exist individually, not even length, width and depth together. They are a conceptual division, reflecting the way we experience the universe where no divisions actually exist.
Physically a meter could be a meter, or an inch and can be a curve.
Because of our very narrow perspective, these measurements seem more absolute than they actually are.
They are even more theory because of the fact that no measures in the physical universe can be exact even from a single perspective. There has never been a scientifically can never be a fully determined system where all dimensions of something can be known.
What we do is the equivalent of using a frictionless surface in a classical physics problem, or using a relative roughness in a fluid flow problem. They are all approximations of a real system. Dimensions are really just that.
[quote]pat wrote:
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]
The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.
You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.
The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.
Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]
The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.
You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.
The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.
Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]
an eternal universe isn’t an answer to the question.
What came first?
Well, before the chicken was an egg, before the egg was a chicken. Repeat.
A repetitive loop of occurrences doesn’t answer the question. At least not when I ask myself what caused existence and where all this came from.
You have to have an answer to the question before it can be the more reasonable one.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]
The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.
You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.
The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.
Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]
A singularity existing in absolute nothingness with zero volume is equivalent to nothingness. A universe that experiences time isn’t eternal because nothing can possibly come to pass in a such an “eternal universe”.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]
The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.
You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.
The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.
Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]
an eternal universe isn’t an answer to the question.
What came first?
Well, before the chicken was an egg, before the egg was a chicken. Repeat.
A repetitive loop of occurrences doesn’t answer the question. At least not when I ask myself what caused existence and where all this came from.
You have to have an answer to the question before it can be the more reasonable one.[/quote]
The eternal universe ends the question.
There is no question.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]
The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.
You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.
The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.
Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]
A singularity existing in absolute nothingness with zero volume is equivalent to nothingness. A universe that experiences time isn’t eternal because nothing can possibly come to pass in a such an “eternal universe”.[/quote]
How can something exist and be equivalent to nothingness?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]
The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.
You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.
The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.
Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]
an eternal universe isn’t an answer to the question.
What came first?
Well, before the chicken was an egg, before the egg was a chicken. Repeat.
A repetitive loop of occurrences doesn’t answer the question. At least not when I ask myself what caused existence and where all this came from.
You have to have an answer to the question before it can be the more reasonable one.[/quote]
The eternal universe ends the question.
There is no question.
[/quote]
So, something has no cause?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The eternal universe ends the question.
There is no question.
[/quote]
So, something has no cause?[/quote]
It never began but simply has always existed.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The eternal universe ends the question.
There is no question.
[/quote]
So, something has no cause?[/quote]
It never began but simply has always existed.
[/quote]
Doesn’t an infinite universe require an infinite regression? Since the big bang would have to go to smaller and smaller size as you go back in time? Or were you saying that before the big bang, there was a singularity that was always there. I don’t think there’s any science suggesting that.