Stephen Hawking wrote:They indicated that the universe began in a big bang, a point where the whole universe, and everything in it, was scrunched into a single point of infinite density.
houserichichi wrote:Now, whether there was ever a "nothing" in the first place we can't say and science isn't attempting to.
houserichichi wrote:I'm with you on that and always have been!! So it still boils down to what you've been saying - either that little singularity has existed forever OR there's some sort of god that created something from nothing.
houserichichi wrote:Perhaps, since the laws of physics only apply to our universe (we can't necessarily assume it exists "outside" if such a place exists) then maybe causality doesn't apply should we exist in a multiverse.
Hugh wrote: Irockyou, I think you're focusing on the "time" element rather than the "substance" element that I'm talking about.
Hugh wrote:According to the black hole singularity nasa page you mentioned, it says; "At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume." (Notice how they still refer to it as something?)
Hugh wrote:Yet, a black hole singularity exists today in our universe, as time goes on all around it. Count ten seconds. It existed during that time. So even if within the singularity there is no time flow, time is still going on "all around it" (and it is still something).
Now, even if the whole universe was at some time a singularity, time would still be going on "all around it" just as it does today outside of the black hole.
NASA wrote:At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume.
irockyou wrote:It existed, but it didn't have to come from something else to exist. That is the key point here: It didn't have to come from something to exist.
houserichichi wrote:As far as WHERE the singularity came from....feel free to duke it out because I certainly don't know.
houserichichi wrote:If I had to make a choice right now, however, I think I'd choose the forever-universe model...just sits better in the pit of me. You?
Hugh wrote:Although it is possible that the universe has always existed on its own, I choose to believe in a forever-existing God, a creator instead. When I think of goodness, kindness, and love, it just sits better in the pit of me.
Hugh wrote:Your words "it existed" sums it up for me. That's my point. There was something existing there, the singularity.
irockyou wrote:What is it which religious people, thinking that athiests have no sense of goodness, kindness, and love?
irockyou wrote:When I think of the universe, I think of how lucky I am that I exist, and how I should study what has allowed me to exist (the universe). Thinking that I exist because of a freak accident of nature as opposed to an almighty being that has control of my life both before and after I die just sits better in the pit of me .
irockyou wrote:Really? I thought your point was that the singularity had to come from something else before it existed.
irockyou wrote:I think this thread is over... I have exhausted all of my resources and I'm pretty sure you did to. However, if anything, this thread makes me believe more that the universe has existed a finite time.
irockyou wrote:Take a look at Hawking and Penrose's paper sometime; you may be amazed at what you see. :wink:
Hugh wrote:Nope, I never said that. Read through the thread again if you'd like. I said that the singularity couldn't have created itself. It must have always existed, in some form, if it wasn't created by an ever-existing creator. That's been my whole point all the way along.
irockyou wrote:Ohhhhhh... ... really? That changes a lot of stuff... where once I thought you were completely ignoring what I was saying and "sidestepping" my logic, you actually weren't. What a failure of communication on my part !
Hugh wrote:That's okay, I knew you were missing what I was trying to say. So now, do you agree with it? Smile
I wrote:However, if anything, this thread makes me believe more that the universe has existed a finite time.
irockyou wrote:I still believe that there was a point in time when there was absolutely nothing (no time, energy, matter).
I doubt anything will move me in that position, and I doubt anything will move you from yours .
irockyou wrote: However, I still believe that there was a point in time when there was absolutely nothing (no time, energy, matter).
moonlord wrote:It existed out there from the end of the previous universe. It might even be the same universe.
For now, I share irockyou's position, as I don't want to include any ethereal entity in the problem. Apply Occam's Razor and shave off God.
What I'm saying is that there could never have been "absolute nothingness" in the past.
Moonlord, do you believe that there was absolute nothingness, no point of singularity, no previous universe, no laws, no energy, matter, density, space, field or time, then the universe created itself from that absolute nothingness, creating time, all the physical laws, energy, matter, space and you and me from there?
So to finish things off, you believe that first there was absolutely nothing, then a singularity of infinite density created itself and appeared out of nowhere into nowhere, then even though time didn't exist, the singularity changed, exploded, creating time and creating the universe, which followed its own created physical laws to where it is today right?
irockyou wrote:You have said that so many times in this thread, Hugh, I could write a book of just your quotes :wink:. Whenever you say it, you make it sound so impossible, as if only a crazy person would believe it.
But just to finish it off, for the last time, yes I do believe that.
Done.
moonlord wrote:That was the case of the first hypothesis. The second does not require any previous universe, but it is still bogus. When I make the head and tail of it, I'll support it more. Right now I incline towards the first.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest