If God can be 'uncreated & unchanging', why not the universe too?"

[Aloysium]

The Caused Beginning of the Universe: A Response to Quentin Smith
William Lane Craig
reasonablefaith.org/the-caused-beginning-of-the-universe-a-response-to-quentin-smith#ixzz4DG3cxdWZ

I will answer: no. It wasn’t from nothing. Well, it was “something” redefined as “nothing”.

The indefinite nature of and the uncertainty that characterizes Quantum physics makes it sufficiently obscure to provide ample material for the imaginings of what is the materialist antipode of Gnosticism.

 

[Nixbits]

PRmerger:

Where else in the entirety of your experience have you ever seen something begin to exist which doesn’t have a cause?

Almost certainly nowhere. More relevant, however, is the question: Where in the entirety of my experience have I ever seen a universe begin to exist? Nowhere. I have no experience of such a thing.

My life-experience is incredibly narrow in terms of temporal duration, physical scale and type of substance. I have lived only forty-eight years (and for some of that time I was incapable of logical and reasoned thought). I can perceive things down to fractions of a millimetre and up to (arguably) millions of miles. Outside that range, and even within it, I have little or no direct personal understanding. I have experience of solid, liquid and gaseous substances made of the elements that exist at or near the crust of one planet. My experiences don’t even allow me to appreciate the nature of supercooled liquids such as glass. The range of pressures, temperatures, and properties of space-time that I have experienced is similarly incredibly narrow.

So it seems to me that I would be foolish indeed to make assertions about ‘whatever begins to exist’, because my experience about all of the things that may begin to exist is simply too small. I don’t believe that any other human alive or dead has or had sufficient breadth of experience either. If you insist on first-hand experience, I must reject premise 1.

To accept premise 1 as true seems to me to assert knowledge about all physical matter of all types and at all scales and at all stages of the life-cycle of our universe and even outside the space-time of our universe (assuming such a concept even makes any sense). I’m not prepared to assert such knowledge.

PRmerger:

What evidence do you have that the universe did not begin?

I don’t have any. But rejection of an argument does not equate to acceptance of the contrary view. I’m as yet unconvinced by the arguments that the universe definitely had a beginning and by the arguments that it did not. I don’t think that any of us yet know enough about the origins of the universe. Hence I must reject premise 2.

 

[Tomdstone]

Because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,.

According to the 2nd law, entropy is increasing. But with the cyclical universe, the present universe is caused by a Big Bang, and the Big Bang is caused by a Big Crunch of another universe which is caused by a BB, etc. forever cyclically into the past and into the future. The question of increasing entropy is solved because as the entropy increases after the BB, as the expansion slows to the point where gravity takes over and the collapse begins first slowly and then rapidly, the Big Crunch brings us to a point of complete collapse into a gravitational confinement phase. The gravitational confinement phase is a new singularity in which the entropy is set to zero which allows a new cycle where another BB begins anew.

 

[Ridgerunner]

According to the 2nd law, entropy is increasing. But with the cyclical universe, the present universe is caused by a Big Bang, and the Big Bang is caused by a Big Crunch of another universe which is caused by a BB, etc. forever cyclically into the past and into the future. The question of increasing entropy is solved because as the entropy increases after the BB, as the expansion slows to the point where gravity takes over and the collapse begins first slowly and then rapidly, the Big Crunch brings us to a point of complete collapse into a gravitational confinement phase. The gravitational confinement phase is a new singularity in which the entropy is set to zero which allows a new cycle where another BB begins anew.

I’m no physicist, and doubt there is one here in this thread.

But as I understand it, physicists and more and more inclined to the notion that as atomic particles lose their energy, the likelihood is that they will ultimately reduce to immensely tiny sub-particles that continue to expand outward into space, black and cold.

To my understanding, the energy required for what some have called the “bang-bang theory” cannot be recalled by gravity. Without re-energization, particles cannot re-create the kind of energized universe we currently have, no matter how many of them one packs together in a “big crunch”.

But again, perhaps a real physicist on here could tell us something we don’t know, and that might be helpful.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I am not convinced by your argument claiming that “it is impossible that there should have been an infinite amount of time before now.” It seems logically possible to me since the real line is infinite in both the positive and negative direction and there is no contradiction in assuming so.

One can imagine that a line stretches infinitely long. However, you can not have a line that is actually infinite in length. Because no matter how long you make it, it could still be longer. Thus, you can never achieve it. If you say the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time you are basically saying you have achieved an infinite line. Yet, now we are still adding to that line by our existence in time. Therefore we have increased this already infinite line. But, how can you increase an infinite line? At what point could you add on to an infinite line to make it any longer? If an infinite amount of time has already passed then there would be no where to add more time to it, since it is already infinite. You can’t get more than infinite. But, since we are still adding time to the line, then the line must not be infinite.

 

[ynotzap]

According to the 2nd law, entropy is increasing. But with the cyclical universe, the present universe is caused by a Big Bang, and the Big Bang is caused by a Big Crunch of another universe which is caused by a BB, etc. forever cyclically into the past and into the future. The question of increasing entropy is solved because as the entropy increases after the BB, as the expansion slows to the point where gravity takes over and the collapse begins first slowly and then rapidly, the Big Crunch brings us to a point of complete collapse into a gravitational confinement phase. The gravitational confinement phase is a new singularity in which the entropy is set to zero which allows a new cycle where another BB begins anew.

temperature will never reach absolute O, simply because movement, change is an essential characteristic of the material universe There will always be movement in matter under any condition, no matter how small or great The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to move to a state of inertness is just that a tendency, It may move towards a state of inertness, but never reach it.

 

[ynotzap]

This much is true. Yes. I don’t see any logical inconsistency in an infinite regression. It is used all the time in mathematics.

Infinite regression is a conceptual reality, not an objective reality based on the Material Universe, We can conceive infinity because thoughts or conceptions are not of a physical nature, but of non-physical nature… The physical has limitations, and can be measured, the conceptual has no limitations and can’t be measured. Thoughts are the product of the intellect of man, the stuff he reasons with, and the intellect is not a physical organ, but a spiritual power (to know), so it is appropriate for the mind of man to deal with concepts of infinity, but it is not appropriate to attribute thoughts of infinity to a finite universe which can be measured by the second degree of abstraction, math. The unchanging principles of math can be applied to the material universe, but remain distinct as to their nature. Spiritual principles do not change, and these principles are properties of conceptual reality.

 

[PRmerger]

Almost certainly nowhere.

Egg-zactly.

So the idea that something can come from nothing seems to be based upon MAGIC, rather than SCIENCE.

More relevant, however, is the question: Where in the entirety of my experience have I ever seen a universe begin to exist? Nowhere. I have no experience of such a thing.

True, true.

My life-experience is incredibly narrow in terms of temporal duration, physical scale and type of substance. I have lived only forty-eight years (and for some of that time I was incapable of logical and reasoned thought). I can perceive things down to fractions of a millimetre and up to (arguably) millions of miles. Outside that range, and even within it, I have little or no direct personal understanding. I have experience of solid, liquid and gaseous substances made of the elements that exist at or near the crust of one planet. My experiences don’t even allow me to appreciate the nature of supercooled liquids such as glass. The range of pressures, temperatures, and properties of space-time that I have experienced is similarly incredibly narrow.

Yes. For me, too.

So it seems to me that I would be foolish indeed to make assertions about ‘whatever begins to exist’, because my experience about all of the things that may begin to exist is simply too small.

This is good. Very good.

So you don’t limit your epistemology to only science and what you experiential observations.

I think it’s curious, then, that you don’t accept God’s existence, given that your life-experience is incredibly narrow in terms of temporal duration, physical scale and type of substance. You have lived only forty-eight years (and for some of that time you were incapable of logical and reasoned thought). You can perceive things down to fractions of a millimetre and up to (arguably) millions of miles. Outside that range, and even within it, you have little or no direct personal understanding. You have experience of solid, liquid and gaseous substances made of the elements that exist at or near the crust of one planet. Your experiences don’t even allow you to appreciate the nature of supercooled liquids such as glass. The range of pressures, temperatures, and properties of space-time that I have experienced is similarly incredibly narrow…so how is it that you don’t believe God exists?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t have any.

Ah. I see.

And we have presented you with some evidence that the universe did indeed begin to exist–both scientific as well as philosophical.

So we have my side that has presented evidence.

And your side which says, “I don’t have any” evidence.

But rejection of an argument does not equate to acceptance of the contrary view.

This is correct.

But does it not seem that the scales are tipped towards my side since we actually have provided evidence for our position?