Question about the universe and its traits
Offline I haven't looked into much of cosmology but I figured someone here has looked into it.
What I have come across so far is that the universe is not self-sustaining in the sense that it won't last forever. (Is this correct?) There is a possibility that the universe will collapse in on itself once it can't expand anymore.
So my question is since the universe isn't self-sustaining (maybe) in the sense that it will eventually die, doesn't this rule out the factor that the universe could have existed prior to any phenomena that would have created it?
Again I'm probably all wrong here so please correct me.
Anyways this question came to thought because I hear some people say this in arguments against theists that "well why couldn't the universe just have always existed?" concerning when theists inquire of how the universe came about if it wasn't by supernatural means.
- Login to post comments
No.
That's nonsense. You're just presuming that only a god could create a non-self-sustaining universe. It's still a presupposition.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm an atheist and this is just a question out of curiosity. I didn't even state or mean to imply that "only a god could create a non-self-sustating universe"....
Our "universe" , as the "big bang", is no more than a tiny piece of the larger unknown universe of infinite big bangs. Our big bang ain't shit ...... just all we can get a hold of .... for now ......
That my guess ...... there is always more ..... why not ? !
Atheism Books.
I just answered the question as asked. If someone answered 'yes,' he would have to be making a presupposition.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
So by answering no you are also saying that the universe could have existed prior to anything else?
As well, is it known that the universe will collapse or just speculation?
When we say universe would that include the whole , the all of it, as if the whole could be finite, or closed ..... The universe we can perceive is but an atomic speck of dust doing it's thing !
Atheism Books.
Theists aren't allowed in this forum.
It is known as far as current scientific theory is concerned, beyond reasonable doubt, that the universe has a finite age. It is not 'speculation', however, given that the theory is based on empircal evidence and research rather than guesswork.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Well, there's all this multiverse theory going about, and if I have a decent grasp on it, this matter/energy universe obviously didn't exist before it existed, but if multiverse theory is correct, it could well be "spawned" from another universe. Multiverse theory is just speculation at this point, but it's as good a speculation as we have, and there is some real math behind the speculation. The point is, when we talk about what existed before this universe existed, we must admit that we're just guessing. As you probably know, an argument from ignorance is not valid, so it doesn't give any validity to a god theory.
The other way of looking at it is that there's no particular evidence that the universe hasn't always existed in some form. Supposing it does die an energy death, it will still exist. There just won't be any motion. So saying that the universe will die isn't quite accurate.
It's not known for sure that the universe will continue expanding until it dies, but that's the most popular opinion at this time, unless something's changed recently. I'm pretty sure that not many physicists think there's enough mass for the universe to collapse on itself again.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Our universe , yes finite, the greater Universe, no, infinite !
Look up a bit. He said he's an atheist.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
If it's in reply to apologetics like the Cosmological Argument, I know it's sometimes (such as when Sapient said as much during the Ray Comfort debate) not meant as an actual scientific proposition, just another arbitrary point at which to end an infinite regress. In the Cosmological Argument, theists say that all things need causes -- EXCEPT! for their flavor of deity. But if we can arbitrarily say that a god doesn't need a cause, we could say that the universe doesn't need a cause. Or maybe the universe was caused by another natural and non-deliberate phenomenon, and that was the uncaused cause. Or maybe the cause before it. Or maybe it just regresses forever, or is cyclical and time will repeat when it gets to some point.
The point is this speculation is arbitrary and rhetorical and not informed or supported by any evidence. If there's no real reason why xyz can't be so, as opposed to abc, what necessitates xyz?
Science is about pursuing imagination too ! So cool ..... imagine !
If someone counters religious claptrap with a specious argument such as "well why couldn't the universe just have always existed" then it simply goes to show that arguing from ignorance is not a preserve of the religious mindset.
I must add that many threads I have read on this site tend to reinforce that observation. I will also add however that the atheist argument is infinitely more likely to produce evidence of rationale and intellect being productively applied - it's just the one you quote isn't one of them.
When you earlier postulate that the universe is finite and had a starting point then you are in accord with the laws of physics as they are understood, but you are excluding that part of quantum physics that accords time itself a finity according to the same maths. It's a fascinating subject in its own right (and one that christians can't fully enjoy, I imagine, since it demands imagination enough to abandon the notion of creation altogether).
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
No master, no creator, no beginning, no ending .... YEAH, thats my religion !
What is way way beyond the furtherest things we've detected and perceived, going outward (larger) and inward (smaller) ???
Atheism Books.
I read that. I just think he's full of shit.
This:
And This:
And Especially This:
Has a tone of baiting argument for theology.
If you're 'just asking out of curiousity', why all of the presuppositions and obvious baiting? And what does, "Well, since the universe's age is finite, doesn't that mean that is was created by
Godsome phenomena?" imply, if not another 'God musta dunnit' argument lead-in?- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
It could imply an "argument lead-in" to whether the Arrow of Time presumption regarding quantum mechanics against which Platonic maths is the antithesis (yet both are required to explain origin mathematically) applies equally to the conceptual debate between rational viewpoints and religious viepoints regarding creating a creator.
Doubt it though.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Sorry that you feel that way, however, I am an atheist and I'm doing a report for college on the topic. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13390
Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I should be pigeonholed in a state where one doesn't ask questions. Even if they may be considered going against my own personal beliefs. I don't know much about the topic, so I asked a question that was on my mind, it was really that simple.
How can you discern that I'm baiting when you have no clue as to who I am or how I think? That is why I asked "So by answering no you are also saying that the universe could have existed prior to anything else?" to gain insight on his thought process. I'm merely trying to learn.
From your standpoint I can see why you would think that way, but when I said "doesn't this rule out the factor that the universe could have existed prior to any phenomena that would have created it?" I meant phenomena in a sense of anything relative that may have happened to create life, like the Big Bang for example. So you could still make the assertion that I am supporting the Big Bang theory.
Anyways, sorry for the uproar.
No apologies necessary.
I think Loc, et al, have echoed what I was saying pretty well. The argument that you asked about really isn't an argument. It's just a bad attempt at using philosophy to do cosmology. If we are to be scientific and logical, we must assert only those ideas that are 1) testable, falsifiable, and most important, clearly definable, and 2) Treat an argument from ignorance as an empty statement. That's why no cosmologists say they know what happened.
There are some theories about what happened before the big bang, and all of them have a lot of blood, sweat, and math behind them, but they're as yet unfalsifiable. Postulating a "god" beforehand is just a blind guess, and is not only unfalsifiable, but gives no real information, since it's not defined.
So, we have two options: A set of theories by cosmologists that have empirically verified physics behind them, or making up a word and saying, "That's what was before." The only responsible thing is to ignore the latter completely.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Know any good books regarding the matter? About cosmology that is.
This is somewhat on topic, and at least a fun mind teaser,
"Zero does not exist" - String Theory Illustrated 6 min http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4LrbAXb4FQ&feature=related
Link from vid above,
http://www.geocities.com/sunjara/mobiusstrip.html
or google, "What On Earth?! Mobius Strips"
"A mathematician confided That a mobius strip is one sided And you'll get quite a laugh if you cut it in half; it's one two-sided piece when divided!"
What's the reason for all this hubbub? The answer is deceptively simple: as the geometry professors put it, the strip has but one side. Want proof? Run your finger along the "outside" of the Mobius strip, and you will pretty soon discover that the "outside"; has become the "inside," and in no time at all the "inside" becomes "outside" again, and your finger has traveled the entire area of the once double sided band! Common sense dictates that paper is aways two-sided, but unfortunately for common sense, there is no way to logically distinguish two sides to this twisted strip. Logician's conclusion? Outside and inside do not exist for Mobius strips at all! READ THE REST in site
Could this somehow be applied to better understanding time and the universe ? Beats me !? Go science , I want to know everything ! ! !
Atheism Books.
I haven't read anything from the last few years, but I've always been a fan of Steven Weinberg.
Cosmology by Steven Weinberg (Hardcover - April 28, 2008)
If you can shell out the bucks for it, this is probably a great book. Weinberg is as familiar with current theory as anyone, and he tends to avoid some of the more controversial (read: unsubstantiated) theories.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism