Does the universe have a beginning?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Does the universe have a beginning?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

hue-man
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 02:08 pm
Some people seem to believe that the big bang is evidence that the universe had a beginning, but isn't this a misunderstanding of what the big bang was? The big bang was preceded by the universal singularity. The big bang simply signaled the beginning of the expansion of the singularity, and the singularity was the universe before it began to expand.

We don't know what, or even if, any event or instant preceded the universal singularity. All we know is that the singularity (or universe) began to expand about 13.4 billion years ago. Doesn't this mean that there is no evidence that the universe had a beginning? Can this mean that causality is an illusion; that some instances and events may have no cause?
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 02:20 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
Some people seem to believe that the big bang is evidence that the universe had a beginning, but isn't this a misunderstanding of what the big bang was? The big bang was preceded by the universal singularity. The big bang simply signaled the beginning of the expansion of the singularity. The singularity was the universe before it began to expand.

We don't know what, or even if, any event or instant preceded the universal singularity. All we know is that the singularity (or universe) began to expand about 13.4 billion years ago. Doesn't this mean that there is no evidence that the universe had a beginning? Can this mean that causality is an illusion; that some instances and events may have no cause?
It appears so, there is no evidence of a before and the singularity is the event with no cause...It appears to come from nothing, the word created could be used.This reasoning that the singularity was always there by the fact it could be reduced to minute frames of time , smaller and smaller and never actually beginning, its pure fiction.I compare it to the idea i never actually started getting up this morning, i only ever went to bed.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 02:28 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
It appears so, there is no evidence of a before and the singularity is the event with no cause...It appears to come from nothing, the word created could be used.This reasoning that the singularity was always there by the fact it could be reduced to minute frames of time , smaller and smaller and never actually beginning, its pure fiction.I compare it to the idea i never actually started getting up this morning, i only ever went to bed.


I wouldn't say that the singularity is the event with no cause. As far as we know, the singularity wasn't even an event, it was just an instant. It may have been the instant with no cause - the instant that initiated all of the others since then.

Even if the singularity was caused by a prior event, that doesn't mean that it came from nothing. That simply means that we don't know where it came from, and that's only assuming that it was caused by a prior event and preceded by a prior instant.

Do you believe that the singularity was caused or created by something else? If so, then why?
 
Sound4People
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 02:33 pm
@hue-man,
Well here is this huge problem amongst all thoughts. Either something has to always have existed or something had to come from nothing. Both are the same amount of ridiculousness. They contradict everything we can imagine. Probaly niether is true and it's some third option I can't think of. Cant thought we could never answer these questions as they were beyond both logic and our reason. I think I agree with him on that.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 02:55 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
I wouldn't say that the singularity is the event with no cause. As far as we know, the singularity wasn't even an event, it was just an instant. It may have been the instant with no cause - the instant that initiated all of the others since then.

Even if the singularity was caused by a prior event, that doesn't mean that it came from nothing. That simply means that we don't know where it came from, and that's only assuming that it was caused by a prior event and preceded by a prior instant.

Do you believe that the singularity was caused or created by something else? If so, then why?
Greater minds than mine tell me there is no evidence of a before, so we can only speculate.The faithful can say i believe it was created.We just dont know, but its a pretty spectacular event and the mere fact that it appears to come from nothing is food for thought.As you might know i look for foot prints and this is one of them..
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 03:42 pm
@hue-man,
Quote:
"Does the universe have a beginning?"

The first problem is the use of the word 'the' implying that there is a one-size-fits-all universe to be perceived by all at all times/moments; there is not.
Your universe has a beginning and end with your 'beginning' and 'end'.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 07:02 pm
@Sound4People,
Sound4People wrote:
Well here is this huge problem amongst all thoughts. Either something has to always have existed or something had to come from nothing. Both are the same amount of ridiculousness. They contradict everything we can imagine. Probaly niether is true and it's some third option I can't think of. Cant thought we could never answer these questions as they were beyond both logic and our reason. I think I agree with him on that.


I agree that something had to come from nothing seems foolish. Especially when you consider the fact that defining nothing, ontologically, is not a very easy thing to do.

The idea that something has always existed, in the sense that something causally related to the universe has always existed, is not a ridiculous statement. In fact, it is probably the only possibility that clearly rings true once you think it through well enough.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------

xris wrote:
Greater minds than mine tell me there is no evidence of a before, so we can only speculate.The faithful can say i believe it was created.We just dont know, but its a pretty spectacular event and the mere fact that it appears to come from nothing is food for thought.As you might know i look for foot prints and this is one of them..


I hear you, but the universe did not come from nothing. I really want to clarify that thought. Firstly, define nothing? Secondly, define something?

The singularity (or universe) did not come from nothing. If the singularity was causally related to something else, then that something else cannot be defined as nothing.

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------

nameless wrote:
The first problem is the use of the word 'the' implying that there is a one-size-fits-all universe to be perceived by all at all times/moments; there is not.
Your universe has a beginning and end with your 'beginning' and 'end'.


No . . . my use of the term 'the universe' is no different from my use of the term 'the basketball'. The word 'the' is just an article (a sub-category of adjectives).
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 08:03 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;58955 wrote:
nameless wrote:

The first problem is the use of the word 'the' implying that there is a one-size-fits-all universe to be perceived by all at all times/moments; there is not.
Your universe has a beginning and end with your 'beginning' and 'end'.


Quote:
No . . . my use of the term 'the universe' is no different from my use of the term 'the basketball'. The word 'the' is just an article (a sub-category of adjectives).

When you say 'the', you are refering to one specific item; 'the universe', one specific universe...
Or it can be a generality as in, 'the basketball (any basketball), when properly inflated, all else being equal, is round.'
Are you refering to one specific universe or to a 'general' notion, an imaginary average of all?
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 08:33 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
hue-man wrote:



When you say 'the', you are refering to one specific item; 'the universe', one specific universe...
Or it can be a generality as in, 'the basketball (any basketball), when properly inflated, all else being equal, is round.'
Are you refering to one specific universe or to a 'general' notion, an imaginary average of all?


I am referring to one universe because I only know of one universe. I don't think we have enough justification to believe in a multi-verse, yet.

Are you trying to say that you don't believe that the things that exist can be considered as a part of a cohesive whole?
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 03:08 am
@hue-man,
I will restate the known facts,there is no evidence of a before, so we must presume by knowledge that it came from nothing.If we presume by logic it could not possibly come from nothing.The question is do we believe the facts or our logic? With such a moment who can say.Its the only event when the creationists can point to an event and claim it as theirs.I can recall a phrase from the bible, when i had faith..God was the word..You can almost imagine the moment like the deep penetrating sound of a base bassoon echoing across the emptiness.Will we ever know?
 
nameless
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 03:25 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;58982 wrote:
I am referring to one universe because I only know of one universe.

Understood.

Quote:
Are you trying to say that you don't [think] that the things that exist can be considered as a part of a cohesive whole?

Not at all. 'My' (tentative) experience is that all existence, ever, is "a cohesive whole", Now! Timeless.

I wish to recant the following statement that I (rashly and tiredly) made;

"the first problem is the use of the word 'the' implying that there is a one-size-fits-all universe to be perceived by all at all times/moments; there is not.
Your universe has a beginning and end with your 'beginning' and 'end'."


It is too full of error to support. Please ignore it. Sorry to waste 'time'.
Peace.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 05:16 am
@hue-man,
to mystify matters even more, there is an emerging theory that the Big Bang that gave rise to us is only one in a series, possibly infinite. (But then, it might be Brahman breathing in....breathing out....breathing in.....)
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 05:47 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
to mystify matters even more, there is an emerging theory that the Big Bang that gave rise to us is only one in a series, possibly infinite. (But then, it might be Brahman breathing in....breathing out....breathing in.....)
There is umpteen theories but the BB has critical observable evidence that all the others lack.We are at the moment stuck with it.It is in our nature to look beyond the horizon but we cant climb high enough to see beyond the singularity, at the moment, but who knows..
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 07:18 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
I will restate the known facts,there is no evidence of a before, so we must presume by knowledge that it came from nothing.If we presume by logic it could not possibly come from nothing.The question is do we believe the facts or our logic? With such a moment who can say.Its the only event when the creationists can point to an event and claim it as theirs.I can recall a phrase from the bible, when i had faith..God was the word..You can almost imagine the moment like the deep penetrating sound of a base bassoon echoing across the emptiness.Will we ever know?


The known facts do not demand that we presume that the singularity (or universe) came from nothing. If the singularity came from something or somewhere else, then that something else cannot be defined as nothing. Do you understand what I'm saying?

The creationists are chasing a lost cause. The argument that the universe had to have been created by a supernatural deity because something cannot come from nothing is called the first cause or cosmological argument, and that argument is invalid. Creationists pretend to do a logical deduction, but they stop deducing at the point of convenience. If everything needs to be created or caused by something else, then what created God and heaven? If the answer is that God can be 'self-created', then why can't the universe be 'self-created'? This argument uses circular logic, and is not logically decidable.

---------- Post added at 09:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 AM ----------

jeeprs wrote:
to mystify matters even more, there is an emerging theory that the Big Bang that gave rise to us is only one in a series, possibly infinite. (But then, it might be Brahman breathing in....breathing out....breathing in.....)


That is called the cyclic model. In this cosmological model, the universe starts with a bang and ends with a crunch, but then the process starts all over again. Every bang leads to a crunch and every crunch leads to a bang. However, emerging evidence is pointing to infinite expansion of the universe. The leading theory of the end of the universe is that it will continue to expand at a rapid rate and it will suffer heat death -- the effect of entropy. The universe will then be completely dark and cold with no matter in sight. In my opinion, that is more mystifying than the cyclic model.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 07:36 am
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
The known facts do not demand that we presume that the singularity (or universe) came from nothing. If the singularity came from something or somewhere else, then that something else cannot be defined as nothing. Do you understand what I'm saying?

The creationists are chasing a lost cause. The argument that the universe had to have been created by a supernatural deity because something cannot come from nothing is called the first cause or cosmological argument, and that argument is invalid. Creationists pretend to do a logical deduction, but they stop deducing at the point of convenience. If everything needs to be created or caused by something else, then what created God and heaven? If the answer is that God can be 'self-created', then why can't the universe be 'self-created'? This argument uses circular logic, and is not logical decidable.
Im no creationist but i can see the reasoning behind the facts.If we have a supreme being who lives beyond time , you dont need a previous time for him to be created in.Why could he have not created the universe and with it time, if he is the supreme being.He could blow his horn and existance be.Till we know if and where this universe did or did not come from, we are speculating.What is something? what is nothing? A few notes on gods violin and we have the vibrations of energy and matter we call something, where once there was what we try to say nothing.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 09:24 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
Im no creationist but i can see the reasoning behind the facts.If we have a supreme being who lives beyond time , you dont need a previous time for him to be created in.Why could he have not created the universe and with it time, if he is the supreme being.He could blow his horn and existance be.Till we know if and where this universe did or did not come from, we are speculating.What is something? what is nothing? A few notes on gods violin and we have the vibrations of energy and matter we call something, where once there was what we try to say nothing.


Creationists have a lot of problems with their arguments. Their God is not merely a God who created the universe and let it run according to the laws of physics without any intervention (deism). There God is a character whom according to them, continually intervenes in human affairs and will intervene again. The attributes of this character are incompatible with the events in our world and the greater universe.

When you say "a supreme being that lives beyond time", exactly what do you mean? Time is the coordination of events as past, present and future, as they are causally related. The current cosmic model says that time and space began with the expansion of the universe (the big bang). In that sense, there was no time before the expansion. So I ask again, if God can be 'self-created' and eternal, then why can't the universe be 'self-created' and eternal?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 10:22 am
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
So I ask again, if God can be 'self-created' and eternal, then why can't the universe be 'self-created' and eternal?


It could be, but until there is any evidence that points to this as being the case all we're doing is science fiction.

Does the universe have a beginning? Well, how do we define "universe"? Do we call pre-Big Bang stuff the universe, or is the universe what began at the moment the Big Bang began?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 10:38 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
It could be, but until there is any evidence that points to this as being the case all we're doing is science fiction.
Well, his point was mainly that the creationist proposal that God can be a self-created first cause does not argue for the existence of God. It only argues for the existence of a self-created first cause, and that need not be God.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 10:39 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
It could be, but until there is any evidence that points to this as being the case all we're doing is science fiction.


I'm not so sure that all of this questioning is science fiction. It may be logically decidable that the universe is eternal, but then again, I'm not a physicist or a mathematician.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Does the universe have a beginning? Well, how do we define "universe"? Do we call pre-Big Bang stuff the universe, or is the universe what began at the moment the Big Bang began?


The universe did not begin with the big bang. The big bang was the beginning of the universes expansion. Before the big bang, the universe existed as a singularity.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 10:49 am
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
Before the big bang, the universe existed as a singularity.
We have no observational data about anything "before" the big bang. We only infer a singularity because that is where we get when we extrapolate back from the expansion. And as has been mentioned, assuming there was a singularity, it may have only existed for the most fleeting instant between the big bang (after) and whatever had been there before.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Does the universe have a beginning?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2024 at 04:16:01