Could the universe cause itself to exist?

[coolduude]

Flyingfish-

I keep noticing that you are rejecting the idea that time (as well as space) was created in the Big Bang. For you, it seems, time has always been, even before the BB. I think you will find that science and philosophy disagree with you (I already showed you Mr. Hawking’s thoughts on time. You rejected that fr some reason too )

gotquestions.org/universe-eternal.html

and

philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/maths-and-the-finitude-of-the-past/

 

[flyingfish]

Flyingfish-

I keep noticing that you are rejecting the idea that time (as well as space) was created in the Big Bang. For you, it seems, time has always been, even before the BB. I think you will find that science and philosophy disagree with you (I already showed you Mr. Hawking’s thoughts on time. You rejected that fr some reason too )

Would you agree that being created means not existing at one moment, and then being brought into existence?

 

[bosonhiggs]

coolduude -

in regards to your earlier analogy with the room and questions about nothing, I suggest you read *Nothing: A Very Short Introduction *. It’s a very simple breakdown of the science of nothing. Nothing is something - we just do not know what because we haven’t discovered it yet. There are many other books on the subject (check Amazon!), but this one happens to be the easiest to read.

To further answer your question you can look into studies being done at the LHC, since one of the primary aims is to recreated the conditions of the Big Bang as well as the fundamental structure of the universe moments after the Big Bang. Knowing these two elements will help scientists create better hypothesis about the conditions *before *the Big Bang.

As for time - know one really knows yet. However, further study into the Theory of Relativity is very promising. Newton believed that time was consistent despite outside forces, while Einstein believed that times was effected by other variables. There are theories that “time” as we understand it was created by the Big Bang. This article nicely sums up the scientific communities problems with understanding time:
nytimes.com/2004/01/01/opinion/01GREE.html?th=&pagewanted=1

 

[rvilbig]

coolduude -

in regards to your earlier analogy with the room and questions about nothing, I suggest you read *Nothing: A Very Short Introduction *. It’s a very simple breakdown of the science of nothing. Nothing is something - we just do not know what because we haven’t discovered it yet. There are many other books on the subject (check Amazon!), but this one happens to be the easiest to read.

To further answer your question you can look into studies being done at the LHC, since one of the primary aims is to recreated the conditions of the Big Bang as well as the fundamental structure of the universe moments after the Big Bang. Knowing these two elements will help scientists create better hypothesis about the conditions *before *the Big Bang.

As for time - know one really knows yet. However, further study into the Theory of Relativity is very promising. Newton believed that time was consistent despite outside forces, while Einstein believed that times was effected by other variables. There are theories that “time” as we understand it was created by the Big Bang. This article nicely sums up the scientific communities problems with understanding time:
nytimes.com/2004/01/01/opinion/01GREE.html?th=&pagewanted=1

The Catholic argument for first *cause does not hinge on the standard model and the Big Bang. Consider what Catholic physicist and U Delaware professor Stephen Barr has written: "f one thinks about it for a while, one can see that a thing can be caused without necessarily having had any beginning in time. For example, imagine that an object is illuminated by a lamp. The lamp is the cause or explanation of the object’s being illuminated. However, nothing in that fact tells us whether the lamp has been illuminating the object for a finite time or for infinite time. If the lamp has always been illuminating the object, then the illumination of the object had no beginning, but nevertheless it always had a cause" (Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, page 33)

Cardinal Newman explains why there is often a confusion about order and causation: "At length we go on to confuse causation with order; and, because we happen to have made a successful analysis of some complicated assemblage of phenomena, which experience has brought before us in the visible scene of things, and have reduced them to a tolerable dependence on each other, we call the ultimate points of this analysis, and the hypothetical facts in which the whole mass of phenomena is gathered up, by the name of causes, whereas they are really only the formula under which those phenomena are conveniently represented.” (Newman, Grammar of Assent, page 67).

Finally, Saint Augustine believed that time was an inherent property of the matter of the universe, much in the same way as time is interpreted in Einstein’s theory of relativity. “Beyond all doubt the world was not made in time, but with time” (Saint Augustine, City of God, 11:6). Therefore, as long as we’re bound to the laws of the universe, we will be bound to thinking about it in terms of time.

Hope this helps. I’ll pray for your conversion to Roman Catholicism.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com*