Forums → WEPR → The Primeval Atom
35 | 7552 |
- 35 Replies
35 | 7552 |
I've noticed across various threads that it is a common argument against the Big Bang that something would have had to create the compressed mass that decompressed to form the Universe. So, now I ask this question: If God can have no beginning and no end, then why can't that original compressed mass have no beginning too? Just curious.
*In fact, everything travelling at the speed of light would age less.
The problem is a hard one, I suppose, when one does not believe in God. The way I see it, by definition, all things that are finite must have a beginning. You cannot simply string together a whole bunch of finite events forever and ever (i.e. turtles all the way down) and leave it at that. On the other side of the coin, you can't simply have the universe be eternal, because that would create contradiction in dating as well as with the second law of thermodynamics, in which entropy is continually increasing.
Therefore, I believe it is logical to presume that to start the finite, it must arise from something infinite, something without a beginning or an end.
The problem is a hard one, I suppose, when one does not believe in God. The way I see it, by definition, all things that are finite must have a beginning. You cannot simply string together a whole bunch of finite events forever and ever (i.e. turtles all the way down) and leave it at that. On the other side of the coin, you can't simply have the universe be eternal, because that would create contradiction in dating as well as with the second law of thermodynamics, in which entropy is continually increasing.
Therefore, I believe it is logical to presume that to start the finite, it must arise from something infinite, something without a beginning or an end.
Time does not negate causality.
You must be logged in to post a reply!