Perhaps there is no beginning (1 Viewer)

[bigbottom]

So Bill O'Reilly asks, "how did the moon get there?" Did God put it there? Or is it simply a speck of dust in the cataclysm that was the big bang? No doubt, there are competing theories on the origin of the universe. And of course, the big bang theory often invites the rejoinder, what came before the big bang?

My question is why does there need to be an origin, or beginning? Couldn't the universe have always existed? Think about the universe going forward in time. It's not terribly difficult to imagine that it will exist forever. That there will be no "end" to the universe. It should be just as easy, then, to imagine that the universe has always existed forever.

Please to discuss.

P.S. I'm not stoned at present, but this thought may or may not have played out one day at 4:20.

P.P.S. Feel free to add your own musings, whether or not chemically enhanced.

 

[Mario Kart]

People cannot fathom that something has always existed. There has to be a beginning and an eventual ending for people to comprehend most things as big as the universe.

Me, I believe it has always existed and there was no beginning at all nor will there be an ending. It is something that always was.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Same as day one.

 

[JbizzleMan]

WOOOOOH

 

[DiStefano]

There are respected scientists who believe there are too many anomalies in the Big Bang theory. Some of them believe that matter and the universe and time have always existed. We think we know a lot, but we've just scratched the surface.

 

[Black Box]

Unless time has a "off" switch, I don't see how we can be at time "now" if there is an infinite amount of time before "now".

 

[ShaqAttaq]

it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

 

[Sarnoff]

Either there was a beginning moment, or there wasn't, but I find both scenarios equally problematic.

 

[bigbottom]

Either there was a beginning moment, or there wasn't, but I find both scenarios equally problematic.

How so?

 

[belljr]

What if C-A-T spelled dog.

 

[timschochet]

Robert Jordan was not a favorite writer of mine by any means, but he used to start each of his fantasy novels with an interesting line:

It was not the beginning, but it was A beginning.

I would apply that idea to your question. The Big Bang (or God creating the Heavens, if you are a theist) represents the beginning of our universe, but it is not an absolute beginning of everything. There could be everything before or outside of the universe, which has no beginning and no end. But that doesn't mean our universe is not finite.

 

[Sarnoff]

Either there was a beginning moment, or there wasn't, but I find both scenarios equally problematic.

How so?

I get how it's better for an atheist viewpoint to get rid of the "big bang" creation moment, but, going to "it's turtles all the way down" doesn't really get anywhere, scientifically. You have to then answer the Prime Mover, figure out the first cause of the first effect, stuff like that. It's got it's own logical holes.It's been a while since I brushed up on the arguments, though. I know there are standard responses to the basic arguments, but, obviously, no final answers.

 

[Paper Lions]

I've just begun reading Short History of Nearly Everything which had some interesting thoughts in it. Specifically, that the Big Bang may just have been one in several "attempts" and that the universe may have expanded and contracted many times before. The main gist is that the law of gravity has to be exactly just right for it to have worked out this exact way. Interesting read so far

I don't think that idea changes anything in BB's initial post....just thought I'd share.

 

[bigbottom]

Either there was a beginning moment, or there wasn't, but I find both scenarios equally problematic.

How so?

I get how it's better for an atheist viewpoint to get rid of the "big bang" creation moment, but, going to "it's turtles all the way down" doesn't really get anywhere, scientifically. You have to then answer the Prime Mover, figure out the first cause of the first effect, stuff like that. It's got it's own logical holes.

It's like you're speaking another language.

 

[Paper Lions]

It's like you're speaking another language.

It's like he's trying to tell me something, I just know it

 

[rolyaTy]

Perhaps death is the meaning of life.

 

[bostonfred]

From a previous thread on a similar note:

There are two possibilities. Either things exist, or they don't. In the case where nothing exists, there is nobody around to notice. You are the outcome of the case where something does exist, and the fact that you're here to observe this is proof of the fact that something did happen and things did exist, at least for a while. It may be that at one time, nothing existed, or that particles blipped into and out of existence periodically as we've observed in quantum physics, and perhaps that will be the case again at some point. But for now, the die is cast, and existance wins.

Particles go in and out of existence all the time, seemingly at random. Or at least they might. We don't really know for sure. But it's entirely possible that all of this is the results of a particle blipping into existence at one point, and the energy in that particle was enough to spark a reaction that led to the big bang. In that case, the particle didn't exist, and then it did. It's not hindsight, it was an event (although the concept of an event is entirely meaningless if nothing exists) that triggered the beginning of things. Another interesting topic on these lines is why things work the way they do. Why do forces exist? Why do atoms and molecules and subatomic particles exist? Why does an object in motion tend to stay in motion? I can deal with the possibility of things suddenly start existing, but how did it come to be that there were rules in place to govern them? --If nothing existed, then reason would not exist, and there would be no rules to govern the lack of existence. So there's no reason for things not to exist, either. One thing that confuses people is that the existence of something seems to imply that there was a time when nothing existed. But time would have no meaning if nothing existed, because time is only a way of measuring things that exist. Talking about the time before things existed would be like talking about how many feet wide the lack of existence was - it doesn't make any sense. Maybe a better way to envision time is to imagine that you are on the surface of a basketball, and as you travel from point A to point B on the ball, you observe different things - maybe a stripe, or one of the letters in the word Wilson, or the rubber gasket used to inflate the ball. But while it appears to you that the ball is rotating, you're actually the one moving around the ball. Similarly, while it seems like time stops for no man, the reality may be that time is meaningless without observation. So it's really the observer hurtling through time, moving around a complex, 4+ dimensional world that consists of 3+ dimensional shapes that are constantly changing shape and position. Maybe I'm the only observer out there. Or, from your perspective, maybe you are. Everything else you've ever seen, touched, smelled, heard or tasted is just an observation of yours, real or imagined. The only thing you know for certain exists is you and your ability to observe, not the universe or anything else you claim exists.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Jack Handey:

"Eventually, I believe, everything evens out. Long ago, an asteroid hit our planet and killed our dinosaurs. But, in the future, maybe we’ll go to another planet and kill their dinosaurs."

 

[Sarnoff]

Either there was a beginning moment, or there wasn't, but I find both scenarios equally problematic.

How so?

I get how it's better for an atheist viewpoint to get rid of the "big bang" creation moment, but, going to "it's turtles all the way down" doesn't really get anywhere, scientifically. You have to then answer the Prime Mover, figure out the first cause of the first effect, stuff like that. It's got it's own logical holes.

It's like you're speaking another language.

Sorry, I'd just rather not rehash hundreds of years of philosophical arguments that aren't settled, and just cut to the chase, and get to where those arguments are now--that both the "big bang" and the "infinite universe" theories are somewhat problematic. Anyway, if it was the turtles comment, thought that was more widely known. Sorry.

 

[Chaka]

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

 

[bigbottom]

Either there was a beginning moment, or there wasn't, but I find both scenarios equally problematic.

How so?

I get how it's better for an atheist viewpoint to get rid of the "big bang" creation moment, but, going to "it's turtles all the way down" doesn't really get anywhere, scientifically. You have to then answer the Prime Mover, figure out the first cause of the first effect, stuff like that. It's got it's own logical holes.

It's like you're speaking another language.

Sorry, I'd just rather not rehash hundreds of years of philosophical arguments that aren't settled, and just cut to the chase, and get to where those arguments are now--that both the "big bang" and the "infinite universe" theories are somewhat problematic. Anyway, if it was the turtles comment, thought that was more widely known. Sorry.

If the thought is that the universe has always existed, why do you have to then answer the "Prime Mover" or "figure out the first cause of the first effect"?

(FYI: I have no idea what or who the "Prime Mover" is.)

 

[squistion]

This thread makes me think of a line by Terry Pratchett, a British fantasy writer, who, in one of his books talked about The Big Bang Theory - something along the lines of First there was nothing, which caused an explosion.

 

[Socrates11]

What if C-A-T spelled dog.

We'd be praying to Tac.

 

[D_House]

My question is why does there need to be an origin, or beginning? Couldn't the universe have always existed? Think about the universe going forward in time. It's not terribly difficult to imagine that it will exist forever. That there will be no "end" to the universe. It should be just as easy, then, to imagine that the universe has always existed forever.

Doesn't Buddhism teach something along these lines?

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

If the universe's mass is constant, I've always been here and always will be.

IMMORTALITY, bishes!

 

[Sarnoff]

If the thought is that the universe has always existed, why do you have to then answer the "Prime Mover" or "figure out the first cause of the first effect"?

(FYI: I have no idea what or who the "Prime Mover" is.)

You don't have to have one, but that seems to me to be making the universe itself a special case of effect without cause. Every other cause has an effect. Just seems like a cheat.

 

[D_House]

If the thought is that the universe has always existed, why do you have to then answer the "Prime Mover" or "figure out the first cause of the first effect"?

(FYI: I have no idea what or who the "Prime Mover" is.)

You don't have to have one, but that seems to me to be making the universe itself a special case of effect without cause. Every other cause has an effect. Just seems like a cheat.

But isn't the 'Prime Mover' another example of effect without cause?

 

[Sarnoff]

If the thought is that the universe has always existed, why do you have to then answer the "Prime Mover" or "figure out the first cause of the first effect"?

(FYI: I have no idea what or who the "Prime Mover" is.)

You don't have to have one, but that seems to me to be making the universe itself a special case of effect without cause. Every other cause has an effect. Just seems like a cheat.

But isn't the 'Prime Mover' another example of effect without cause?

Yeah. I'm not saying one argument is better than the other, I'm saying that they both have the same kind of flaws.

 

[bigbottom]

If the thought is that the universe has always existed, why do you have to then answer the "Prime Mover" or "figure out the first cause of the first effect"?

(FYI: I have no idea what or who the "Prime Mover" is.)

You don't have to have one, but that seems to me to be making the universe itself a special case of effect without cause. Every other cause has an effect. Just seems like a cheat.

But isn't the 'Prime Mover' another example of effect without cause?

Yeah. I'm not saying one argument is better than the other, I'm saying that they both have the same kind of flaws.

I'm still not seeing the flaw.

 

[Big_Russel]

What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's ALL about?

 

[Jayrok]

It's not too hard to imagine our universe having no beginning or end. Stars emerge and burn out over time. Our Sun will burn out eventually. Life may be generated elsewhere in the universe. That life comes and goes and is generated somewhere else where conditions allow. Philosophies and religions probably spring up each time to try and explain the universe and the beginning. But their star will too burn out some day. This has to be in order for new stars to be born triggering new worshippers and skeptics.

 

[bostonfred]

I've often wondered (ok so, it has not been that often) - if life has existed in other galaxies, but not within the same time span of our existence.

SO not only would we be separated by distance, but time. In a billion years, some other civilization may exist somewhere, but will never have know about our civilization.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Also a on this topic from another recent thread

 

[bigbottom]

Damn, fred, just post a honda reference already!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So many posts to comment on in this thread...

Black dot.

 

[bostonfred]

Damn, fred, just post a honda reference already!

No way. This is a favorite topic of mine. I'd like to see some more discussion, and the other threads seem to have died as people posted their one liners and left. I'm hoping that you can bring enough gravitas to this thread to get things going.

 

[Charlie Steiner]

What if C-A-T spelled dog.

Wow, that's heavy, Ogre.

 

[DiStefano]

So many posts to comment on in this thread...Black dot.

That's one of the theories. It was all a black dot before the Big Bang.

 

[Christo]

People cannot fathom that something has always existed. There has to be a beginning and an eventual ending for people to comprehend most things as big as the universe.Me, I believe it has always existed and there was no beginning at all nor will there be an ending. It is something that always was.

I believe nothing exists.

 

[joffer]

I've just begun reading Short History of Nearly Everything which had some interesting thoughts in it. Specifically, that the Big Bang may just have been one in several "attempts" and that the universe may have expanded and contracted many times before. The main gist is that the law of gravity has to be exactly just right for it to have worked out this exact way. Interesting read so far

might check this out

 

[Jayrok]

As a child, I remember sitting in Sunday school class thinking about our universe and nothingness. It's hard to put those thoughts on paper, but I'd compare it to a neighborhood. If my family wasn't here, our next door neighbor would be here and never know of us. If they weren't here, the guy down the street... and so on. If our town wasn't here, the city across state would still be here. And so on. Take away states, countries, continents... the ocean, the moon... the stars... until nothing is left except empty dark space. Nothing is left. Supposing our universe is the only universe, take it away and there is nothing.

Well, it's hard to relate how that affected an 8 year old child, but it used to fascinate me. I had a hard time imagining "nothing" being out there in existence.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Just like attempts to venture farther out into the universe, I support the continued hearty search for our origins if only because such good science has come from the effort. Though my guess is that the answer lies in dimensions of which we are yet unaware, I cant imagine the answer ever mattering to the conduct of life.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I think the answer lies in here

 

[Guest]

A similar question is, in an expanding universe, WTF are we expanding into? If you were able to place yourself at the edge of everything and then go one step further, what would you be stepping into? Scotsdale?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Maybe time didn't always exist. At least not in the way that Alan Parsons described it.

 

[Fennis]

42

 

[Fensalk]

The universe has many constants and properties that are precisely tuned to allow life to exist. This leads to one of two inescapable conclusions. Either there are an infinite number of universes, which means a universe arising that can support life is inevitable, or there was a creator who tuned the universe so that life was possible.

 

[bostonfred]

A similar question is, in an expanding universe, WTF are we expanding into? If you were able to place yourself at the edge of everything and then go one step further, what would you be stepping into? Scotsdale?

That's not really a meaningful question. It's like asking, if time just keeps moving on, where does it go? Today's the last day in January on my calendar, so is tomorrow just going to be some new time that doesn't exist yet? We expect time to keep on moving, and despite certain predictions about the Mayan calendar, there isn't an end in sight to time any more than there's an "end" of the universe. It's not like there's a big empty space, and the universe is a balloon that is expanding to fill it up. The size and space of the universe is expanding just like time does. I think the question you're trying to ask, though, is if there's an "end" of the universe, where if you were there, you'd just kind of run into a wall and fall down. And the answer to that, if I understand it correctly, is no. I think it's easy to imagine the edge of the universe as a huge wave of mass and energy that's just blowing outwards as part of the ongoing results of the Big Bang. And to some extent, that's true. But the universe is not limited to the three dimensions that you and I can sense. It's not a big box or a sphere or a blob - those are three dimensional shapes. Some people have described the expansion of the universe as being like the outside surface of a balloon, where the expansion of the balloon means that every point on the outside of the ballon moves a little further from every other point, and yet they're all on the same plane. If you were to trace a line around an uninflated balloon, your pen might travel a couple inches. If you begin to inflate the balloon, the pen would have further to travel to go from here to there. At no point is there an end to the path that your pen might take - you just loop back around to where you started.

There isn't really a "balloon" in the sense that the universe is spherical. If you imagine the outside of the balloon as a flat, two dimensional piece of rubber, it's not until you shape it into a sphere that it begins to look like a balloon. Similarly, if you imagine the universe as a huge three dimensional sphere, or cube, or blob, or whatever shape you picture it as, you're only thinking in three dimensions. Now wrap that three dimensional object into a four dimensional shape, and you get the "balloon" that is the universe.

 

[Mello]

The universe has many constants and properties that are precisely tuned to allow life to exist. This leads to one of two inescapable conclusions. Either there are an infinite number of universes, which means a universe arising that can support life is inevitable, or there was a creator who tuned the universe so that life was possible.

They aren't inescapable. Maybe there's some other reason why the universe has the fundamental properties it does. Not even the Big Bang theory can explain where the singularity that became our universe came from. Perhaps universes with other properties are possible, but the only one is ours. Perhaps there's some underlying reason why universes can only have the properties ours does or maybe just like ours but with anti-matter dominating rather than matter.I don't think it's particularly helpful to just say there was a creator that made it so that life is possible. The starting point is that we know life is possible, we're here. So of course we're going to observe a universe where life is possible. That says nothing about its origins.

 

[Chaka]

I'm told that there is a hell of a restaurant at the end of the universe.

 

[Paper Lions]

I'm told that there is a hell of a restaurant at the end of the universe.

I imagine it's similar to the French Quarter: lots of booze, boobs, some voodoo, and a lot of people throwing up