The Universe has always existed (deal with it).

Science never says the Universe came from nothing. What it says is that what we can measure at this point indicates there was once a point where all energy/time/space/mass was in a motionless point and expanded. Now, that is an assumption at best.

If energy is eternal and can neither be created nor destroyed, it is completely in line to assert that time/space/matter has always existed, eternally and will always exist going forward.

Therefore, there is no beginning, no end.

 

While your premise is sound since scientists are hypothesizing about a cyclical universe that expands and contracts that has always existed and will always exist I am curious as to why you have chosen to post this under Religion & Philosophy rather than Science.

Is your OP a challenge to those who believe in a "creator" of the universe?

 

No, it's a philosophical argument to me. The idea that the Universe once never was is illogical and goes against the fact there is already existence. There is no reason for energy/space/time/matter to have needed a beginning. The more logical explanation is that these things have always existed in one form or another.

The religious contended God has always existed eternally for no reason, why not go one step down and put that to the Universe ?

 

Thank you for the clarification.

If god does not exist how is it a "step down" for the universe to be eternal instead?

 

It's a step down in giving the traits of God (eternally existing) to the Universe.
No theist can be against this possibility.

 

I suspect that theists will have a problem with the concept of an eternal universe because it negates the need for a "creator" and the Genesis "in the beginning" fallacy.

 

Yes, they might, but they are not in a logically defensible position for doing so.

Theist: "God has always existed. God has no creator and will always exist."

Science: "The Universe has always existed. The Universe has no created and will always exist."

 

Theist beliefs have no basis in logic.

 

There are some proposed resolution to these issues.

The energy associated with gravity is negative, and one proposed resolution is that the negative energy associated with gravity completely cancels the energy associated with matter (and all the other stuff) leading to a zero-energy universe. According to that idea, energy conservation is not an issue.

Another idea is that if you go through the maths, energy conservation is tightly tied to the "symmetry under translation in time". Symmetry under translation in time means that an experiment or any kind of physics acts the same regardless of what time you perform it at. If you make a pendulum, it will swing at the same speed in the 1800s as now. If we consider "time" before the big bang, that may no longer hold true, and consequentially, conservation of energy might not hold across the big bang.

Of course, these are only potential solutions to the problem of energy, they haven't been proven to be correct. These ideas don't disprove the idea that the universe always existed in some way. I'm just saying science doesn't commit us to any of these ideas.

 

Well, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, so it has a precise age, however general relativity says that time stops flowing in the presence of large densities of matter and energy, so time almost didn't flow in the beginning of the universe.

You can't talk about the beginning of the universe without mentioning time dilation. That's how you get the "paradox" that the universe started existing 13.7 billion years ago but still wasn't created since there was no "before".

The universe always existed from the point of view of an observer outside of the universe, but started existing 13.7 billion years ago from the point of view of someone inside the universe.

Theists always ask "what was there before" but "before" isn't defined at the beginning of the universe since time breaks down to infinite time dilation.

 

So, there is no such thing as time, only observable movement of matter and deterioration ?

 

Correct. There is no science on whence the Universe came nor any way to measure it. The bottom line is no one knows.

 

Well no, because movement implies time flowing, and the whole point is that time stops flowing. It's more like all movement slows drastically and eventually stops moving altogether.

 

No, the Universe has been measured back as far as 13.7 billions years old. When the Universe was one second old, it was also once half a second old, then a quarter of a second old, etc ..... for infinity. There is no amount of time or size that can't be divided in half when it comes to the Universe.

The Universe has always existed.

 

The current form of the universe is a 4 dimensional matrix including time. There may be other dimensions but we do not yet have the ability to measure them at present. That might be possible in the future.

The prior forms of the universe may have had different dimensions and that might apply to future forms of the universe to come.

Theoretically if there was a form of the universe that traveled at the speed of light it would not have the dimension of time, or at least time would be a stationary constant with no past and no future.

 

Nice math trick, but one moment there was nothing but a singularity (and there's no telling how old that is) and then there was an expanding universe.

 

You are completely in agreement with statements by Stephen Hawking Ph. D. in chapter 13 of his book "Stephen Hawking's Universe."

You are also in agreement with the being of light of NDE fame who communicated much with former Atheist Mellen Benedict:


http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/experiences/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a05

 

I have a question about your proposition. What is the universe that you are referring to?

 

The answer is 42!

 

Or.... could perhaps time be an invention initiated by an off the scale intelligence with the intent of
taking created beings to higher and higher levels of wisdom, altruism, maturity and love?

 

Everything that exists, to me, is the Universe. To me, even if there are "multiple Universes," it is still all part of the Universe. Where ever there is space/time/matter/energy, that is the Universe.

 

This is just Zeno's paradox, which is a false paradox. "For an arrow to reach its target, it has to go through half the way, then half of the remaining way, etc, which is an infinite sum, so an arrow never reaches its target". Of course this has been debunked to death, since an infinite sum can have a finite result.

The only way for an arrow to never reach its target is for time to slow down the more it comes close...which is exactly what's happening at the beginning of the universe,

 

It is zeno's paradox and it is not false in this case. Please tell me what age/size the Universe was which couldn't be cut in half.

Zeno's paradox was never proven false, it was proven un-provable.

 

The most literal translation of Genesis 1:1 (Youns Literal Translation, direct from ancient Hebrew) says God "prepared" the heavens for His creation, not that He created everything, allowing for the possibility in your OP both in the scientific and the spiritual world.

In fact, theres a great many things that original text of The Bible (and other religious texts, I suspect) say that dont conflict with science nearly as much as modern interpretations and doctine make them out to.

 

Actually, in physics, time exists only in terms of motion.