Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

[Wayne92587]

I understand that redshift is evidence of something, but evidence of What?

Redshift Shift is direct evidence of Nothing.

The Theory of the Big Bang was not even created until after the creation of the Theory of an Expanding Universe.

Red Shift is born of the existence of the Theory of an Expanding Universe, not the Big Bang.

The Theory of The Big Bang now used as support for the existence of the Expanding Universe.

The Theory of an Expanding Universe being used to support the existence of The Big Bang.

[Thinking critical]

I understand that redshift is evidence of something, but evidence of What?

Redshift Shift is direct evidence of Nothing.

Do you see a problem here?

The Theory of the Big Bang was not even created until after the creation of the Theory of an Expanding Universe.

I'm not totally sure what are trying to say here, I don't think you are either.
Hubbles law was the first piece of observable evidence to prove that the Universe was expanding, this evidence is used to support the Big Bang model. A theory explaining expansion is the BBT, they are one in the same.

Red Shift is born of the existence of the Theory of an Expanding Universe, not the Big Bang.

You clearly don't understand what a redshift is then, as I said earlier, redshift is the name of the phenomenon which occurs as light moves away from an observer, they would occur regardless of expansion, just not on a cosmological scale (aka cosmological redshifts).

The Theory of The Big Bang now used as support for the existence of the Expanding Universe.

The Theory of an Expanding Universe being used to support the existence of The Big Bang

Again your not making sense, talking in riddles?. The explanation of the fact that the universe is expanding is incorporated in the Big Bang theory, expansion itself is supported by Hubbles law which explains cosmological redshifts and so forth.

[Sy Borg]

In the beginning there was no Spacetime and now there is.

Spacetime is seemingly just the stuff that emanates from matter as opposed to the unadulterated cosmic foam that preceded the BB. Matter inherently creates time through consistent decay times for differing entities, and from there time becomes more definable still via motion and life cycles.

[Present awareness]

Imagine a vast infinite space, in which one could travel a trillion light years in either direction. Suddenly, out of nowhere, a universe appears with billions of galaxies. It could be 13.7 billion light years across, but in the infinite expanse of space, it is nothing more then a speck of dust. 100 billion light years farther away, you may come across another universe. With no limit to space, there is no limit to how many universal clusters of galaxies exist.

Since there is no beginning or ending to space, there is no beginning or ending to time. Everything that is here now, has always been here now, in potential, otherwise it wouldn’t be here now.

[Thinking critical]

Since there is no beginning or ending to space, there is no beginning or ending to time. Everything that is here now, has always been here now, in potential, otherwise it wouldn’t be here now.

No beginning? All evidence suggests the contrary, if one is willing to postulate a hypothesis you need to account for the evidence which defeats it. i.e expansion, cosmic microwave background?
Space and time are intrinsic to each other one can't exist without the other. Potential existence isn't deterministic, to say something will potentially exist it to say its possible that it may exist.
There certainly appears to be a fundamental causal process responsible for influencing the structure of the Universe from origins to current day, however to say that something is because it always potentially was, is not really saying anything at all, you're simply stating a fact in hindsight.

[Present awareness]

Since there is no beginning or ending to space, there is no beginning or ending to time. Everything that is here now, has always been here now, in potential, otherwise it wouldn’t be here now.

No beginning? All evidence suggests the contrary, if one is willing to postulate a hypothesis you need to account for the evidence which defeats it. i.e expansion, cosmic microwave background?
Space and time are intrinsic to each other one can't exist without the other. Potential existence isn't deterministic, to say something will potentially exist it to say its possible that it may exist.
There certainly appears to be a fundamental causal process responsible for influencing the structure of the Universe from origins to current day, however to say that something is because it always potentially was, is not really saying anything at all, you're simply stating a fact in hindsight.

All evidence comes from what we can see, and our instruments are limited, meaning we can only see so far. The evidence only points to what we think we know about the universe and doesn’t defeat any theory of what the universe might be.

Big Bang theory suggests the universe that we know began 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. What was there before the Big Bang, nobody knows. Since that is the case, one theory is as good as the next. My suggestion is that what we consider to be the entire universe, is just one of many Big Bangs, but we will never know of other Big Bangs because of the vast distances between them and us. Light has a limited speed, so if the next Big Bang were a trillion light years away, it would take some time for the light to get here! What is the use of suggesting something which we may never know about? Probably no use whatsoever, but I find the idea that the universe might be bigger then what we think, interesting.

[Sy Borg]

We don't know if this was the first bang or the billionth.

The posited end state of the universe after eventual heat death is identical to the posited state of reality before the BB.

[Thinking critical]

All evidence comes from what we can see, and our instruments are limited, meaning we can only see so far. The evidence only points to what we think we know about the universe and doesn’t defeat any theory of what the universe might be.

What we can see constitutes as one type of evidence, repetitive experiments, equations and formal logic are all methods science employs when analysing evidence to support a theory.
As for

"The evidence only points to what we think we know about the universe"

you are putting the cart before the horse, we obtain knowledge and establish scientific theories from the evidence we gather. I'm not sure what you mean by what we think we know unless you know something that the rest of us don't this statement is epistemologically flawed.
As for your final statement, I do not follow. You will need explain.

Big Bang theory suggests the universe that we know began 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. What was there before the Big Bang, nobody knows. Since that is the case, one theory is as good as the next.

Since when? Any suggestion which maybe considered as a plausible explanation needs to be consistent with the scientific framework which has already been established, any hypothesis needs to demonstrate how it ties in with the current model.

My suggestion is that what we consider to be the entire universe, is just one of many Big Bangs, but we will never know of other Big Bangs because of the vast distances between them and us. Light has a limited speed, so if the next Big Bang were a trillion light years away, it would take some time for the light to get here! What is the use of suggesting something which we may never know about? Probably no use whatsoever, but I find the idea that the universe might be bigger then what we think, interesting.

You're essentially postulating a multiverse theory less the multi, problem is this is wrong by definition; the Universe, by definition encompasses everything that can be said to exist within it, the BBT accounts for the entire Universe the 93b light years of observable Universe and beyond.
If there are other Origins for other universes unobtainable to us, the they're would be defintion be part of a multiverse.

[Present awareness]

All evidence comes from what we can see, and our instruments are limited, meaning we can only see so far. The evidence only points to what we think we know about the universe and doesn’t defeat any theory of what the universe might be.

What we can see constitutes as one type of evidence, repetitive experiments, equations and formal logic are all methods science employs when analysing evidence to support a theory.

As for

"The evidence only points to what we think we know about the universe"

you are putting the cart before the horse, we obtain knowledge and establish scientific theories from the evidence we gather. I'm not sure what you mean by what we think we know unless you know something that the rest of us don't this statement is epistemologically flawed.
As for your final statement, I do not follow. You will need explain.

Big Bang theory suggests the universe that we know began 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. What was there before the Big Bang, nobody knows. Since that is the case, one theory is as good as the next.

Since when? Any suggestion which maybe considered as a plausible explanation needs to be consistent with the scientific framework which has already been established, any hypothesis needs to demonstrate how it ties in with the current model.

My suggestion is that what we consider to be the entire universe, is just one of many Big Bangs, but we will never know of other Big Bangs because of the vast distances between them and us. Light has a limited speed, so if the next Big Bang were a trillion light years away, it would take some time for the light to get here! What is the use of suggesting something which we may never know about? Probably no use whatsoever, but I find the idea that the universe might be bigger then what we think, interesting.

You're essentially postulating a multiverse theory less the multi, problem is this is wrong by definition; the Universe, by definition encompasses everything that can be said to exist within it, the BBT accounts for the entire Universe the 93b light years of observable Universe and beyond.
If there are other Origins for other universes unobtainable to us, the they're would be defintion be part of a multiverse.

Humans once thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun moved across the sky. As we gather more knowlege, theories are adjusted to allow for the new information. What we think we know today, will no doubt be adjusted in the future.

Since the word “universe” means all that there is, the idea of multiverse does not make sense, unless it is included within the definition of universe. I believe that all that there is, goes a lot farther then what science currently believes or can detect.

[Thinking critical]

Since the word “universe” means all that there is, the idea of multiverse does not make sense, unless it is included within the definition of universe. I believe that all that there is, goes a lot farther then what science currently believes or can detect.

Universe and multiverse are definitively two different explanations, one encompasses all that is known to exist and makes allowances for a infinitely larger Universe, the other is a hypothetical the possibility that other, perhaps infinitely other Universes exist.
I doubt many, if any cosmologists would be foolish enough to insist on a size of the Universe in it's entirety, it's referred to as "observable Universe" for a good reason. The BBT only claims an age of the Universe and size of the observable Universe.

[Sy Borg]

TC, the difference may well be moot, simply a matter of perspective. As PA noted, we have always underestimated the scale of reality.

We know that the observable universe is exponentially larger than what we know. How might it be arranged at the largest of scales?

Reality at all scales is known to be granular, and at very large scales the universe is dotted with galaxies. At larger scales still, reality is broken up into clusters and superclusters, and the relative space between.

It's perfectly possible, and seemingly most likely, that there's a larger granulation again, where what we think of as the universe is essentially a megacluster of superclusters, with vast tracts of space between it and others. It's also possible that the "universes" of a "multiverse" are only a small part of a much larger reality.

[mr533473]

1) Our Universe has a beginning, it can be traced back to roughly less than 1 to 10th of a second from its origins.

2)Spacetime is intrinsic to the Universe, there is no before the beginning or we couldn't call it the beginning.

1) That's like saying "I have $100, see?" and showing me 99 (even more like telling me someone else can prove that you have 99)

2) Spacetime is a mathematical model. If you are saying that before the universe began the was no spacetime fine, but if that's your reasoning that nothing proceeded this point that you claim to trace back to within a 10th of a second of then you're mistaken or pisstakin'. Imagine a running race, among the observers, someone arrives late as the race is half way and asks "what happened before the race?" and the others say "There was no before the race because they hadn't started timing"

[Thinking critical]

1) Our Universe has a beginning, it can be traced back to roughly less than 1 to 10th of a second from its origins.

2)Spacetime is intrinsic to the Universe, there is no before the beginning or we couldn't call it the beginning.

1) That's like saying "I have $100, see?" and showing me 99 (even more like telling me someone else can prove that you have 99)

Not even remotely the same,

2) Spacetime is a mathematical model. If you are saying that before the universe began the was no spacetime fine, but if that's your reasoning that nothing proceeded this point that you claim to trace back to within a 10th of a second of then you're mistaken or pisstakin'. Imagine a running race, among the observers, someone arrives late as the race is half way and asks "what happened before the race?" and the others say "There was no before the race because they hadn't started timing"

The analogy doesn't work, one more specific to the problem would be as follows;
If the race track represented the entire Universe, start line equaling the origin and the finish line the edge of the observable Universe and one were to ask......what exists before the start line? There would of course be no logically valid answer.
Unless of course you are inclined to present a metaphysical cause, if so, please enlighten me.
Any attempt to postulate a coherent hypothesis in regards to the origins question, must align with the data which has taken our knowledge back thus far. So yes, prior to the existence of Spacetime there was nothing, matter has mass which equates to energy and requires space to exist, thermodynamics means etropy is enevidable creating change and the arrow of time. So, the only state that could have existed is one of zero energy OR nothing.

[mr533473]

1) That doesn't seem like a reasoned response. Clearly even if not the same (I only said it was "like" in the first place) there are similarities, so deeming it not remotely the same is disingenuous.

2) What did I say that made you think that the race represented anything other than the entire universe? I mean, that is what we're talking about. Also, nothing I said would warrant you requesting a metaphysical cause from me. If I refute YOUR ABILITY TO PROVE A BEGINNING, if anything, you could assume I am denying a cause altogether. That said, I'm really just refuting your knowing of one, not making my own case so defend yourself but don't switch the burden of proof. You got 99 dollars, I want to see the the 100th. Now, in your last point.."Any attempt to postulate a coherent hypothesis in regards to the origins question, must align with the data which has taken our knowledge back thus far. So yes, prior to the existence of Spacetime there was nothing" Why do you assume that once you reach the limits of your knowledge, anything beyond it is non existent/"there was nothing"?

Off topic: "This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out" << douche chills.

[mr533473]

I didn't quote you in my previous post so this one is just so you get notified of the response which can be seen in the above post.