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

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Can you explain? I don’t understand how that violates the concept of infinity.
Click to expand...
  • By definition it is not possible to arrive at the end of an infinite series of events.
  • We are always at the end of the series of events that have already happened.
  • Therefore, by definition it is not possible for that to be an infinite series.
 
I am sure the original theorist of the Big Bang, a catholic priest and scientist Rev. Georges Lemaitre would cringe at the way the theory has evolved in more recent times.
 
The beginning of the infinite series called natural numbers is the number 1. It’s a finite, measurable number. That’s the present, and the cycle goes on infinitely back from here, just as numbers increase infinitely from 1.
 
Last edited:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
You keep acting like this infinite series has to have a beginning but that isn’t true. It’s infinitely long.
Click to expand...
I did NOT assume that the series is finite. My assumption was that you have an infinite number of people. But if each one has no money and needs to borrow money from another, then you have an infinity of bankrupt people that need to borrow money to lend money. You are imagining that in an infinite series of borrowers every person gets the money from someone else, without end, right? But that’s only in your imagination. In reality, nobody gets money from anybody because money is not available. It does not matter whether the series is finite or infinite. Money will not be available to anyone as long as everyone is broke and has to borrow money from someone else, ad infinitum. An infinite number of nothing does not produce something.

So, why are you telling me that I thought of the infinite series as if it had a beginning? I didn’t do that.
 
Last edited:
There’s always somebody else to borrow money from. They don’t need a person to get money from to start since the series continues forever. You keep saying the universe needs to start but it doesn’t, it’s always existed. There is no start to the series. How haven’t I made that clear?
 
Last edited:
Okay, well how does this disprove the ability of the universe to be cyclical? You’ve only shown that this cycle won’t give you money. That doesn’t mean infinities are impossible.
 
Last edited:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Okay, well how does this disprove the ability of the universe to be cyclical? You’ve only shown that this cycle won’t give you money. That doesn’t mean infinities are impossible.
Click to expand...
You can have an infinite series of expanding and collapsing universes, but you still need to trace the origin of its existence, just as you have to trace the origin of money. Any universe that changes needs a cause of existence, as I explained in my post above (Post #97). Did you miss it?
 
I didn’t miss it, it’s just completely wrong. There’s no “origin.” The universe has always been in this cycle. You can’t trace it back to the start since there is no start.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
I didn’t miss it, it’s just completely wrong. There’s no “origin.” The universe has always been in this cycle. You can’t trace it back to the start since there is no start.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about its origin in time. I am talking about its origin in being; its ontological, not temporal beginning. The universe can be in a cycle of expanding and collapsing state forever, which means that it has no beginning in time. But because it is a changeable being, it still requires a cause of being and, therefore, an ontological origin. Please re-read Post #97.
 
neophyte said:
40.png
Freddy:
That’s not correct. In a cyclical universe, there is no chain of events. The same event - the big bang, just repeats itself.
Click to expand...
That’s self-contradictory nonsense. Repetitions are chains of events.
Click to expand...
No…one is linear and one is cyclical. A line has a beginning and an end. A circle doesn’t.

Now that is a blazingly oversimplification. But as I said earlier, these concepts are literally impossible to imagine. Please don’t tell me it’s wrong because you can’t get your head around it.
 
The universe has always been. It has no origin in being. The cause of this universe was the last, and that the one before, and that the one before, and so on and so forth to infinity. There is no beginning of being, no start of the cycle, for there is no earliest universe. It has no beginning in being. I read your post. I am not ignoring what you said. I’m telling you that you’re wrong.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
The universe has always been.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but you have to prove that. I have so far granted that hypothesis – that the world always existed – only for the sake of argument, but I have not accepted that as fact. In fact, there is no physical proof that the universe has always been.
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
It has no origin in being. The cause of this universe was the last, and that the one before, and that the one before, and so on and so forth to infinity. There is no beginning of being, no start of the cycle, for there is no earliest universe. It has no beginning in being.
Click to expand...
Again, there is no physical proof that there was a universe before this one. Please do not think that because I did not assume a finite series of causes to arrive at the existence of an Uncaused Cause, that I am accepting the hypothesis of an infinite number of causes, or an infinite number of pulsating universes. Actually, I don’t think there can be an infinite number of causes anymore than there can be an infinite number of borrowers/lenders without money.
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
I’m telling you that you’re wrong.
Click to expand...
O my! You’re now pontificating more than Pope Francis. Hahaha. We are just playing a game, and you are playing devil’s advocate, remember? So you don’t have to say it that way. Do you think I’m wrong just because you told me so? Sorry, that doesn’t hold water, Captain.
 
Last edited:
You’re presenting a commonly known to be unproven speculation
– as if it’s a well known Fact; It is not.
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Because that’s my job. I’m acting as if this is fact and seeing if you can disprove it.
Click to expand...
And my job in this case is to remind you that your ‘act’ is purely speculative; and nothing else.

That’s a fact - and it’s never my intention to “prove” what is self-evident.
 
Last edited:
Moving the goalposts now? All I said is that cyclical universe theory is a viable alternative to a caused universe. But, I can’t seem to make my position understandable for you, so I’m done. I’ve said my piece but you keep repeating the same, refuted “criticisms.” It’s tiring and I’m not wasting any more effort.
 
I agree. We’ve both stated our positions sufficiently. So let the readers of this thread judge.
 
You’re presenting a commonly known to be unproven speculation
– as if it’s a well known Fact; It is not.
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Because that’s my job. I’m acting as if this is fact - and seeing if you can disprove it.
Click to expand...
And my job is to remind you that your act is pure speculation. That’s a fact! 🙂

It’s never my intention to prove or disprove endless, "What If’s?"
.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean, speculative? They’re a proven celestial phenomenon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top