Big Bang doesn't imply a beginning to the universe?

[EndTimes]

However - as far as even science (not maths) actually knows - Neither Infinity nor Infinitesimals exist in The Physical Realm - due to Known Planckian limits of Mass, Time and Distance

That the joy of other realities. The laws of physics may not apply as you know them two. As a result these buffer chaos universe may make it possible to have pockets of universes where the laws allow for life as we know it.

Other realities? That’s the thing. Any one can WHAT IF? and FANTASIZE ANYTHING…
And then travel to it in their minds - and dwell awhile and tell us all about it…

HOWEVER… . In the Physical Realm of Space-Time and Mass…

Perhaps and May and If - still resides inside the Realm of Speculatives -

And as such - can not negate for instance - the currently agreed upon with the world of PHYSICS - the Planckian Limits which reveal to us That the one Known Universe - Known as The Universe - is Discrete; bereft of Infinitesimals and therefore Infinity - accept in the MetaPhysical Realm is it? Of Maths, Thoughts, Information, Plannings… Et Cet…

And then there’s the Spiritual Realm. Of Love, Hate, Truth, Lies, Et Cet,
all of which have major major impacts upon the Humans who dwell on Earth

 

[EndTimes]

“The cyclical universe is an infinite series of causes. It’s an embracing of the infinity, not an explanation of why it isn’t needed. Once again, this removes the need for an uncaused cause because there’s no beginning of the cycle. The cycle was, is, and will always be. Beyond space and time. Expanding and collapsing. Birth and rebirth.”

PLEASE -

You’re presenting a commonly known to be unproven speculation
– as if it’s a well known Fact; It is not.

Rather, for some - it’s nothing more than wishful thinkings

• oft-employed in a yes failed attempt: to prove and/or disprove what is can not.

_

 

[rom]

The cyclical universe is an infinite series of causes. It’s an embracing of the infinity, not an explanation of why it isn’t needed. Once again, this removes the need for an uncaused cause because there’s no beginning of the cycle. The cycle was, is, and will always be. Beyond space and time. Expanding and collapsing. Birth and rebirth.

Saying the cycle is an infinite series of causes does not solve the problem. Suppose you want to buy a car but you don’t have the money. So, you go to your friend A to borrow the money. If A doesn’t have the money, he goes to B to borrow the money. If B doesn’t have the money, then he goes to C to borrow the money, and so on. Do you think this can go to infinity? Well, let’s assume that there is an infinite number of people in the world, but all of whom don’t have the money and need to borrow money from another. Then what you have is an infinite series of people with no money to lend. Hahaha. In that case you cannot buy the car!

That is the fundamental fallacy of all those who imagine that an infinite series of essentially insufficient causes is possible. In this case the money is existence. Just as you cannot give or lend money if you don’t have money, so you cannot cause existence unless you also exist. If every cause in the series needs to derive its existence from another ad infinitum, and there is no First Cause that can give existence to any other cause, then you have an infinite series of causes that don’t have existence or don’t exist. In other words, the infinite series itself does not exist. Hahaha. Bingo!

Here is what I can say, Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman. The infinite cycle of universes is a figment of the imagination. You need a First Cause (someone who has the money), the ultimate Source of being, to break the insufficiency of the whole chain.

Now, it’s your turn to rebut my argument. Please don’t say, “Well, it’s an infinite series.” That only begs the question and does not solve the problem. Yes, it’s an infinite series alright, but only in your imagination. Without a First Mover or a First Cause, this infinite series cannot exist in reality.

 

[Welshrabbit]

I started out asking for arguments (not proof) for the non-existence of God…aka Atheism (with a capital A).

You my friend introduced me to the concept of agnostic atheism which is a reasonable belief.

No one has been able to provide a reasonable explanation for Atheism, that is, God does not exist and there is no possibility He exists.

 

[Maximus1]

In Classic Theism you still require an explanation for existence of contingent things to begin with, as well as existence from moment to moment.

 

[Freddy]

I started out asking for arguments (not proof) for the non-existence of God…aka Atheism (with a capital A).

You my friend introduced me to the concept of agnostic atheism which is a reasonable belief.

No one has been able to provide a reasonable explanation for Atheism, that is, God does not exist and there is no possibility He exists.

There’s no requirement for a capital A for atheism. And no-one can ever prove or disprove the existence of any god. Let along the Abrahamic God.

The reason why people don’t believe in Him is that they don’t find the evidence convincing.

 

[Welshrabbit]

For sure. I’m solely referring to the militant Atheist types out there…I can’t be the only person to have interacted with them can I?

These people are sure that God doesn’t exist and won’t even entertain the possibility of a higher power.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I don’t think it does. There’s still the problem of an infinite regress - wich is logically impossible in a causal chain.

You’re presenting a commonly known to be unproven speculation
– as if it’s a well known Fact; It is not.

Because that’s my job. I’m acting as if this is fact and seeing if you can disprove it.

That is the fundamental fallacy of all those who imagine that an infinite series of essentially insufficient causes is possible. In this case the money is existence. Just as you cannot give or lend money if you don’t have money, so you cannot cause existence unless you also exist. If every cause in the series needs to derive its existence from another ad infinitum, and there is no First Cause that can give existence to any other cause, then you have an infinite series of causes that don’t have existence or don’t exist. In other words, the infinite series itself does not exist. Hahaha. Bingo!

Here is what I can say, Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman. The infinite cycle of universes is a figment of the imagination. You need a First Cause (someone who has the money), the ultimate Source of being, to break the insufficiency of the whole chain.

Now, it’s your turn to rebut my argument. Please don’t say, “Well, it’s an infinite series.” That only begs the question and does not solve the problem. Yes, it’s an infinite series alright, but only in your imagination. Without a First Mover or a First Cause, this infinite series cannot exist in reality.

You’re not understanding. You keep acting like this infinite series has to have a beginning but that isn’t true. It’s infinitely long. There’s no need for a first cause since there’s no point in extra existential time where the universe didn’t exist. You keep tracing this cycle back to the beginning and saying “See? There’s no way it can start without God!” When there is no beginning at all. Just as there’s no “largest number,” there’s no first universe. Every universe was caused by the one before it. For as many as you have breaths to ask or years to ponder, you can ask what caused x, the answer is “the one before that.”

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

You’re not understanding. You keep acting like this infinite series has to have a beginning but that isn’t true. It’s infinitely long. There’s no need for a first cause since there’s no point in extra existential time where the universe didn’t exist. You keep tracing this cycle back to the beginning and saying “See? There’s no way it can start without God!” When there is no beginning at all. Just as there’s no “largest number,” there’s no first universe. Every universe was caused by the one before it. For as many as you have breaths to ask or years to ponder, you can ask what caused x, the answer is “the one before that.”

Let’s give some examples.

1. A soldier in a trench receives an order to attack the enemy from another soldier. He asks from who the order came from, and the other points to a third soldier, who points to a fourth, who points to a fifth. We can’t go on infinitely, because we would never reach the origin of the order. So, we must admit the existence of a superior of the soldier who issued the order without receiving it.
2. You need money, and you ask a friend of yours to give you some. He has no money, so he asks a friend of his to give him some. This third has no money, so he asks a fourth to give him some. This fourth has no money, so he asks a fifth to give him some. We could go on and on, but if there’s an infinite regress you will never get your money.
3. We see a chain that is attached to a ceiling. We look at the last ring: it is sustained by an immediately prior ring, wich is sustained by an immediately prior ring, wich is sustained by an immediately prior ring, ecc. If there’s an infinite regress (that is, if there’s no first ring ), the chain is attached to no ceiling and falls.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

You did exactly what I said you cannot do. You can’t just go to the beginning of the series! There isn’t one. Every soldier got the order from a different soldier. Every person got money from someone else. Every link is attached only to a different link. There is no first soldier, first person, or first chain because they don’t exist in an infinite series.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Every soldier got the order from a different soldier.

The supreme commander gives orders without receiving orders. That’s why his office exists to begin with.

Every person got money from someone else.

Money needs to be produced. People who produce money get money without receiving it.

Every link is attached only to a different link.

If there’s no first link (or no ceiling ), the chain falls. All chains are finite.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

If there’s no first link (or no ceiling ), the chain falls. All chains are finite.

This chain is infinite.

Seriously, you can’t think about infinite series in the way you think about finite ones. You need to stop talking about the first part of an infinite series, this “uncaused cause.” THERE IS NO START TO AN INFINITE SERIES.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

This chain is infinite.

Seriously, you can’t think about infinite series in the way you think about finite ones. You need to stop talking about the first part of an infinite series, this “uncaused cause.” THERE IS NO START TO AN INFINITE SERIES.

My point is not that infinite series must have a starting point. My point is that actual infinite series don’t exist.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Not in this universe, no. But why can’t they exist on the scale of the entire universe?

Besides, all your “proofs” of impossibility come from looking at the supposed first cause of an infinite causal series.

 

[neophyte]

That’s not correct. In a cyclical universe, there is no chain of events. The same event - the big bang, just repeats itself.

That’s self-contradictory nonsense. Repetitions are chains of events.

 

[neophyte]

Not in this universe, no. But why can’t they exist on the scale of the entire universe?

Because that would violate the definition of the word infinite.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Can you explain? I don’t understand how that violates the concept of infinity.

 

[KMC]

Any expanding universe you can imagine, must have a beginning.

BVG Theorem

Our universe is expanding, thus it had a beginning.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

It was caused by the contraction of the last universe, which rebounded in the Big Bang.

 

[itsjustme]

Any expanding universe you can imagine, must have a beginning.

That’s not true, as per the theory’s author himself. It’s never a good idea to take things out of context.