Why did the universe start…

originally posted by: Consvoli


How do we you know there isn't a God or there one?

First of all. The "God" terminology has tendency to be misconstrewed. In non theological, or, cosmic terminology, it would be more like a primordial anomaly.

And this "primordial anomaly" would be the crux of the matter in bridging a gap between a positive and a negative existence if you were to go the 'emergent' route in lieu of the uninterrupted and continuously eternal.

originally posted by: CCoburn

originally posted by: Consvoli


How do we you know there isn't a God or there one?

First of all. The "God" terminology has tendency to be misconstrewed. In non theological, or, cosmic terminology, it would be more like a primordial anomaly.

And this "primordial anomaly" would be the crux of the matter in bridging a gap between a positive and a negative existence if you were to go the 'emergent' route in lieu of the uninterrupted and continuously eternal.

Interesting thought but does this explain the infinite regress problem?

A primordial anomaly would have a cause and everything we know has a cause unless we have to accept that cause and effect can sometimes be violated. There is no way out of this unfortunately and it doesn't matter if you choose to include or exclude God from the universe.

originally posted by: Consvoli

Interesting thought but does this explain the infinite regress problem?

In the emergent theory time would not infinitely regress. Instead time would stop and enter a non temporal state where this "primordial anomaly" within this static eternal state would instantaneously spring back in the absence of time and recreate ad infinitum.

One of the differences between the two theories is that within an eternal ever flowing spacetime continuum you could indefinitely regress 'physically' whereas with emergence from negative existence - a spatial and temporal negation - you could only regress back to this 'nothingness' and no farther since there is nothing before it.

The catch here though is that since we presume eternity itself is cyclical and ever flowing there does still in fact exist an infinite regression but of a different manner as in one is of a 'physical' nature and the other is 'mental', as in knowing, but you cannot traverse physically from one universal manifestation to the one before because there literally exists nothing between them.

The visualization appears somewhat like a pendulum. This emergence from negation would signify the start of this 'pendulum swing' where the movement is synonymous with the "arrow of time" progressing forwards and ultimately the pendulum returning to its starting point of negation where another swing would be initiated. The pendulum never 'began' this motion however, therefore, it will never end - the definition of eternity.

One of the absurdities here is how this primordial anomaly would be able to even function at all from within a timeless state, so it would seem that there is a 'self-begotten' aspect at play here somehow.

The time model here appears as oscillating like the pendulum, back and forth back and forth ad infinitum.

A pendulum as figurative time, how fitting.

originally posted by: CCoburn

originally posted by: Consvoli

Interesting thought but does this explain the infinite regress problem?

In the emergent theory time would not infinitely regress. Instead time would stop and enter a non temporal state where this "primordial anomaly" within this static eternal state would instantaneously spring back in the absence of time and recreate ad infinitum.

I've never come across the emergent theory and the point you made about time stopping in a non temporal state isn't making much sense to me. If time has always been there and if the universe hasn't had a beginning then there is no need for cause and effect but if we think about it the existence of something will require a cause.

What is a primordial anomaly?

originally posted by: Consvoli

I've never come across the emergent theory and the point you made about time stopping in a non-temporal state isn't making much sense to me.

Doesn't time need a beginning or a starting point from which to progress forward? Otherwise you're back at the problem of a physical infinite regression again.

In order for time to function properly it must have a beginning and an end, it starts and it stops as opposed to one eternal time sequence. Don't we know that the universe had a beginning which was also the beginning of time?

Negative existence is akin to some cosmic resetting mechanism that allows for the eternal creation of finite linear time sequences i.e. universes, otherwise you're talking about eternity which encapsulates everything.

a reply to: CCoburn

Thank you for all your amazing information. It’s still setting my brain on fire!

originally posted by: CCoburn

originally posted by: Consvoli

I've never come across the emergent theory and the point you made about time stopping in a non-temporal state isn't making much sense to me.

Doesn't time need a beginning or a starting point from which to progress forward? Otherwise you're back at the problem of a physical infinite regression again.

In order for time to function properly it must have a beginning and an end, it starts and it stops as opposed to one eternal time sequence. Don't we know that the universe had a beginning which was also the beginning of time?

Negative existence is akin to some cosmic resetting mechanism that allows for the eternal creation of finite linear time sequences i.e. universes, otherwise you're talking about eternity which encapsulates everything.

The infinite regress situation is the one I find the most likely.

Our time starts with the start of the universe but that's not the cosmic time or an absolute time. The universe seems to have had a beginning caused by some energy reserve or energy build up.

It's possible there are many structures called universes similar or even different to our own but time is a concept we have invented to measure the passage of events.

a reply to: JJproductions

I always thought the Univerrse started because the sex was so good it blew the Dark's mind.

That's why we called it the Big Bang theory.

What happens when anti-matter and pure energy combine?

Just a thought to ponder?

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

When that happens, we are on a boat to know-where!

a reply to: JJproductions

LOL!

a reply to: JJproductions

The way time functions reminds me of the Bible quote: I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end(of time), but it's only the beginning and the end of one single iteration.

originally posted by: Consvoli

The infinite regress situation is the one I find the most likely.

Some choose to believe in the ever-flowing time theory, but it's like I said, no matter which you choose it's going to result in some form of absurdity, so I suppose what it comes down to is pick your absurdity. Where reason and logic fails there is also macro to microcosmic reflections and analogies to be had which circumvent the rules of logic and reason.

originally posted by: Consvoli

Our time starts with the start of the universe but that's not the cosmic time or an absolute time. The universe seems to have had a beginning caused by some energy reserve or energy build up.

Time is movement. Time is change. Without it nothing ever moves or changes. The beginning of the universe IS the beginning of "cosmic time" unless you're talking about some multiverse theory.

Possibilities for time with some seeming more viable than others:

1. Finite linear. Time with beginning and end - one universal iteration. (first choice)
2. Infinite linear. Time with beginning but no end. (least favorite)
3. Ever-flowing, circular, eternal, or "absolute" time. Same as eternity. (a remote second choice).

a reply to: CCoburn

Earth revolves around the Sun at a rate of about 67,000 miles per hour. Spins at 1000mph. Sometimes faster or slower and our time is speeding up. It least for me!

I look back and time flew away as life gets crazy!

God had the idea of Woman.
She would be beautiful and magnificent.
So much so, He had to create a universe just for Her.

a reply to: Moon68

Re : The Infinite Regress Ever-Flowing Time Model


The recent posts here made me think of the infinite regress and ever-flowing eternal time scenario a bit more. These two models aren't really that different from one another so it was a rather brief affair.

If you at least try to remain somewhat true to the laws of parsimony and replace the emergent primordial anomaly and its emergence from negative existence with an eternal anomaly that governs time in a way that transcends conventional reason.

Space need not be infinite and eternal either; only time. The eternal anomaly would be dimensionless(except for time), and would perpetually and periodically spawn finite linear time fragments that evolve into universes and the parts thereof.


This is the road with a fork, and you can either go this way or the other. Considering this model in spite of infinite regression is something I haven't really done much, and sometimes hasty resolutions can be prone to err, but I don't really see anything that paramount that distinguishes between these two.

And thinking more about it now, adding more parts to a model in attempt to eliminate the infinite regression problem might not be the most simple and elegant solution while inadvertently, even if only briefly, abandoning Occams' Razor to the wayside.

Edit : I clicked the wrong reply button. This was supposed to be just a general reply.

originally posted by: JJproductions
a reply to: CCoburn

I look back and time flew away as life gets crazy!

Time catches up with everyone. Before you know it, you're dead and gone (when you die you cease to exist; don't believe the Babylonian religious philosophers who taught that death is a passage to another kind of life, which is a myth, or those who adopted this myth and taught that some immaterial or spirit part of a human survives the death of the physical body, such as in the myth of the immortal immaterial soul taught by false religion/"Babylon the Great", Rev 17:5). 75-85 years (100 if you're lucky) is nothing compared to the promise of a resurrection followed by everlasting life on a paradise earth.

Jesus confidently spoke of living again, and he told his disciples that this was a certainty. “In the re-creation,” he said, “[you] will inherit everlasting life.”—Matthew 19:25-29. According to the parallel account by the Bible writer Luke, Jesus said that “in the coming system of things,” his disciples would receive “everlasting life.” (Luke 18:28-30) Yes, people who remain “no part of the world,” in obedience to Jesus Christ, have the prospect of everlasting life.​—John 15:19.

Indeed, 1 John 2:17 concludes: “The one who does the will of God remains forever.” Yes, that one has the prospect of everlasting life right here on earth, as stated at Psalm 37:29: “The righteous will possess the earth, and they will live forever on it.”

Resurrection of the dead

“The hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out.”​—John 5:28, 29.

“There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.”​—Acts 24:15.

No more sickness, old age, or death

“At that time the eyes of the blind ones will be opened, and the very ears of the deaf ones will be unstopped. At that time the lame one will climb up just as a stag does, and the tongue of the speechless one will cry out in gladness.”​—Isaiah 35:5, 6.

“God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”​—Revelation 21:3, 4.

No more crime, violence, or war

“As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth.”​—Proverbs 2:22.

“They will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.”​—Isaiah 2:4.

Freedom from fear, and peace everywhere

“They will actually dwell in security, with no one to make them tremble.”​—Ezekiel 34:28.

“They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea.”​—Isaiah 11:9.

What a pleasure it will be to live when such conditions prevail everywhere on earth, when everyone loves God and shows love for fellow humans! (Matthew 22:37-39)

I ask, what is the point of a sterile universe?

a reply to: CCoburn

4. Time had no beginning and no end (therefor as eternal as the One who created the universe, otherwise that term "eternal" as applied to this Creator, loses its meaning, it's a description of how long He has existed, which requires the concept of time to be a meaningful description, or time to have existed eternally as well). Time is not circular. But is ever-flowing. Conceptualized as a single line extending infinitely to the left (into the past) and infinitely to the right (into the future).

The truth of the matter. The bolded part shows where it is different from your 3rd option or proposed (supposed) possibility. But I guess there was a reason for you to leave out that option or (supposed) possibility from your comment (and to share your opinion that option 3 is just a "remote" possibility for you, even when adding the misleading idea about time being circular which tends to give people the wrong impression and makes them conceptualize it as a circle), and possibly even your thinking or consideration, while preferring to present the other 3 options or (supposed) possibilities that are actually “false stories”/myths.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

John 8:42-47

Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to* [Or “accept.”] my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.”

Not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20) Thus Paul wrote about some who were “always learning [taking in knowledge] yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. Such men are completely corrupted in mind, disapproved as regards the faith.” (2Tim 3:7,8)

How much thought have you given your 3 unverified ideas/philosophies about time being actual possibilities? Or does considering that not all that important in your thinking? Perhaps because you believe that anything is possible, and nothing is impossible? A very popular (but already proven incorrect by common sense and applying logic correctly and properly) idea/philosophy amongst evolutionary philosophers and philosophical naturalists, or those who like the idea that 'nature did it' (concerning the origin of the universe and life).

Concerning the articles below (where I will focus on those who believe that things that have already been proven to be impossible are nevertheless still possible in their eyes, the general trick being falling back on what the South Park writers call "The Agnostic Code" to argue that they have not already been proven impossible beyond any shadow of the doubt, cause supposedly we can't be certain of it): remember that the so-called "hypothesis of abiogenesis" a.k.a. the so-called "spontaneous generation of life" (by chance, "by accident", quoting Richard Dawkins on the matter) has also been called "the chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting Haldane and Oparin). Yes, the false story that 'evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life' is a rather blatant lie. It isn't called "chemical evolution" for nothing (differentiating it from biological evolution). The term "evolution" can refer to all 3 main evolutionary philosophies/ideas and "false stories"/myths: cosmic evolution (both the origin and subsequent so-called "evolution" of the universe) followed by the chemical evolution of life (from non-living chemicals, or matter), followed by biological evolution (the myth involving the notion of "common descent", "common ancestry" of all living things from single-celled ancestors).

Can Life Arise by Chance?

...

IMPOSSIBILITIES NO DETERRENT

There are literally thousands of pitfalls for the evolutionary theory, en route from a primitive atmosphere, bombarded by lightning or radiation, to a one-celled living organism able to reproduce itself. Every competent scientist knows this. He knows that the many speculations advanced to evade these pitfalls are inadequate. Laws governing energy and matter declare impossible the spontaneous generation of life. Mathematical laws of probability doom its chances.

... Dr. Emil Borel, an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less than a 1 in 10^50 chance for something to happen, it will never happen, no matter how much time is allowed. ...

Prominent evolutionists know the problems. Some try to push them into outer space. British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said that ‘existing terrestrial theories of the origin of life are highly unsatisfactory for sound chemical reasons,’ and that ‘life did not originate on earth itself but, rather, on comets.’ Others grit their teeth and believe in spite of the lack of evidence. Nobel-Prize-winning biologist Dr. George Wald stated: “One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are​—as a result I believe, of spontaneous generation.” On his own admission, he believes in the impossible. [whereislogic: and it's circular reasoning. He first assumes we are here as a result of chance, by chance, spontaneous generation, a priori, no matter if it's actually impossible to have occurred by chance if you do the math, the odds calculation; once you go far beyond what is deemed "mathematically impossible" to have occured by chance, a rough ballpark figure is sufficient. Then he argues, because we are here (the effect), it occurred by chance (the cause), by spontaneous generation.] This kind of reasoning is comparable to that of an earlier biologist, D. H. Watson, who said that evolution was “universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”

ARE YOU GULLIBLE OR LOGICAL?

...

You, however, should investigate it for yourself. Then, decide for yourself. Your life could depend on your decision. And consider this: You could jump off a 20-story building. Just before you hit the street a sudden, terrific gust of wind catches you and whisks you back up onto the top of the building. Is that likely? It is very unlikely. Do not count on it. But it is far more likely than that a living organism would form spontaneously! Do not count on that either!

...

See the rest of the articles in the next comment.

Chapter 4: Could Life Originate by Chance?

...

Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code​—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: “Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.”⁠16 This leaves the paradox Dickerson raises: “Which came first,” the protein or the DNA? He asserts: “The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’”⁠17 In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: “The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled.”⁠18

Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”⁠19 But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of “inconvenient facts” so easily? Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code “the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.”⁠20 And Francis Crick concluded: “In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.”⁠21

Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished “in one blow” by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.

...

Is Intelligence Involved?

When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”⁠23

Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”⁠24 Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,”⁠25 as Dawkins expressed it. Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life.⁠26 In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?

Is It Scientific?

If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?

On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,” Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, “to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: “Yet here we are​—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”⁠27 Does that sound like objective science? [whereislogic: sorry for the repetition, but the quote is so telling for the point about the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland I wanted to make initially, that will now be at the very end of this background info, so you can see that the following statement is true: "Evolutionists are the White Queens of today. They have had infinite practice in believing impossible things." As it relates to what I said before about which types like to believe and/or promote the erronuous idea that everything is possible and nothing is impossible. Even those things that have already been proven conclusively, far beyond any reasonable doubt, that they really are impossible, no doubt about it. But there will always be those in denial of the truth of the matter, preferring to believe in proven myths/false stories, since that concerns my points and Bible quotations in my previous comment.]

British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as “simple dogmatism​—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen.”⁠28 How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”⁠29

Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such matters in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding dogmatism prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific method.

Not All Scientists Accept It

Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds against a spontaneous origin for life, said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” He further observed that after Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”⁠30 A sad but true commentary.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor at University College, Cardiff, said: “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. . . . For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe​—and finding it.” In other words, it is just not possible that life could have originated from a chemical accident. So Wickramasinghe concludes: “There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale.”⁠31

...
Continued in next comment. I messed up the lay-out above, should have all been in an external box, but whatever, at least the letters are now bigger.