Comment by Kris Feenstra on August 29, 2012 at 9:10pm

There must have been something that started it all. Either the elements existed forever or a creator. So now we have to chose which we like better. 

• Why 'must'?
• Why that dichotomy?  I've never observed nothing in any absolute sense of the term, so I can't make assumptions where behaviour and properties are concerned.  My comprehension of the best observations of nothing science has to offer is not particularly deep or comprehensive.
• Why do we have to choose?  What I like isn't particularly important, though I do have my reasons for not concerning myself with one of these options. Unless this creator falls within the realm of natural order, it doesn't seem to lead to anything of use or value where my understanding of the universe is concerned.

Which do you find more logical: something/someone has always been, or nothing turning into something? 

Neither. It's a matter of premises.  Personally, I don't have enough information to establish a solid premis on which to base my logic, and my opinion has little bearing on the subject matter.  At present, I am fine with maintaining a certain level of agnosticism while entertaining the various hypotheses put forward by cosmologists.  I'll entertain other sources if their methodology makes sense to me.

Comment by Ron V on August 29, 2012 at 9:48pm

"There must have been something that started it all. Either the elements existed forever or a creator."

No, false dichotomy.

"There are at least four quite different possibilities, all of which are consistent with everything we know about the universe:

1) Instead of beginning as a state of infinite density, the universe of space, time, and matter comes into being with a finite density and continues in a state of expansion

2) The universe "bounces" into a state of expansion from a previous state of maximum but finite contraction

3) The universe suddenly begins its expansion from a static state, in which it has resided for a past eternity

4) The universe gets ever smaller in the past without reaching a state of zero size- it has no beginning."

The Origin of the Universe, Barrow, p87-88

 

Why? Because “nothing” is unstable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/Origin.pdf

Comment by Anna Silva on August 29, 2012 at 9:59pm

HIya Kris.
Thanks for posting! :)
One of my biggest passions is finding truth (I do believe in absolute truth, but that is not the discussion here). I particularly enjoy hearing, or in this case reading, other people's opinions on subjects such as origin; I love how it challenges my own philosophies and mind set. So I'm glad to see a swift response.
That being said, I will attempt to answer your questions the best that I can.

The "must" is specific to those who are searching, and my deduction is illustrated pre-"must" :) if you will. Since you are content with you agnosticism, I understand why you protest. I am also interested in hearing other theories I have left out. You are not required to pick your answer, I am simply saying I only see those two options. Of course I did use the big bang theory to encompass other similar theories, so I see how my post may be confusing. But my question is, "something out of nothing, or something always existed." Please share if you know of any other options.

I agree with you that nothing has not been observed. I think that is such an important concept to consider when deciding upon your view of origins of the earth. 

Let me know if you need clarity on my post.

Comment by Anna Silva on August 29, 2012 at 10:13pm

Hi Ron,

Thanks for bringing up those other theories. I did not mean to say that only the Big Bang and Creation theories exist.
The statement I made was meant to be a continuation to the big bang vs. creation concept i was going with, (as in they are both saying the same thing; something existed forever for eternity. Curiously, believers of either theory can not except that reasoning from each other and insist on explanations for infinite existence.) and does not include the nothing into something concept.

I believe all 4 of those theories still are either something always existed, or nothing turned into something.

Which makes me ask, "which makes more sense?"

Comment by Doug Reardon on August 29, 2012 at 10:54pm

the universe has, and always will exist.  It does change, continuously.  Infinite time suggests infinite possibility.  Of course, if the universe ever ceased to exist, it would do so for eternity.

Comment by archaeopteryx on August 29, 2012 at 11:53pm

I suggest you read Krouse's theories regarding the universe having come from nothing. Sorry I don't immediately have a link, but a simple Google search should bring up all of the links you need.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 30, 2012 at 12:21am

I gravitate towards the concept of infinite history of causes but sometimes consider the possibility of cause/effect being decoupled at some point in history/future where time does not intersect the other dimensions.  In the decoupled scenario, the events that caused the big bang may not have yet occurred.  Then I put down my bong and sleep a wonderful sleep.

Comment by archaeopteryx on August 30, 2012 at 12:31am

What's really funny, is to go back mornings, when I'm sober, and read what I wrote the night before --

But on a more serious note, if both time and space were compressed into the singularity that became the BB, then time as we know it didn't exist anywhere else, wherever "anywhere else" was.

Comment by James Cox on August 30, 2012 at 12:39am

We could just say we 'don't know', and confine the question to the 'open questions' file for now.

Would we know a good answer when it bits us in the a-ss?

Maybe the answer is 'outside' of our present science?

  

Comment by archaeopteryx on August 30, 2012 at 12:41am

Unfortunately James, "I don't know" is the one phrase that theists rarely use.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 30
• Next ›
• Page