ForumsWEPRThe Primeval Atom

35 7552
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,824 posts
Shepherd

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.

  • 35 Replies
Wigginometry
offline
Wigginometry
689 posts
Nomad

*In fact, everything travelling at the speed of light would age less.


In my understanding of light speed travel, you don't actually age less, everything else just appears to age more. It's really all about perspective, whether you were on the spaceship on back on Earth.
Parsat
offline
Parsat
2,180 posts
Blacksmith

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.

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,824 posts
Shepherd

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.


That reasoning wouldn't apply because before the Universe began there was no time, and therefore no finity or infinity.
Parsat
offline
Parsat
2,180 posts
Blacksmith

Time does not negate causality.

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,824 posts
Shepherd

Time does not negate causality.

Mot. If time and space are linked, and all space in the Universe would be compressed in that small space, then so would all time. So, time would be all flubbed up, for lack of a better term, and our perceptions of time and causation would be inapplicable, no matter what part we would be applying.
Showing 31-35 of 35