devans99 wrote: ↑May 30th, 2019, 10:16 am
The universe can't of been expanding forever - expanding things have a start to expansion - so at best the infinite universe has been cycling. So as matter is created, infinite density would be reached.
I'd have to get the math guys to check, but I am pretty sure an infinite thing can expand and, well, continue to be infinite.
As far as the particle proof is concerned, my proof is valid; if something does not have a temporal start point, then how can it have a temporal start point plus one? So by induction, the object does not exist. If you can't see that, try imagining a spacial object with no spacial start point - its impossible (a circle has a choice of infinite start points btw) - it works exactly the same way for the time dimension - something with no temporal start does not exist.
Again, if we look at the spatial object, we are always thinking of a finite object. Of course it doesn't have temporal starting point, if it is infinite and
we
can't
label
any other point, the next one
because there are infinite points going back.
You present your argument as if you are eliminating possible points.
No.
You are eliminating the appropriateness of certain labels for point.
Causality is about as fundamental as it comes.
We don't know that.
I've already ruled out things popping up out of nothing with infinite time - infinite matter density. Anyway what you are suggesting here, matter from nothing, is in violation of the conservation of energy and sounds downright magical to me - stick to the science and logic.
Well, scientists with more knowledge than us have found ways to justifying matter coming from nothing. And a first cause is not something that scientists have found. They have also not found timeless things or things outside time. I think you will find if you restrict yourself to what you want to restrict me to, you have no argument.
Further, if there is a first cause, that first cause made a lot of matter and energy. There was no conservation there. It might be natural, but it is nature following laws we do not know. And in fact we know that laws change over time. In the early stages of the universe the laws were not what they are now.
We have movement so movement must of been put in place by something moving initially.
So, God, something outside of time, needed to move to make the universe?
God probably triggered the Big Bang with the singularity being the first movement in the universe. Black holes do not explode and create universes - not even light can escape a black hole so they create nothing except Hawking radiation.
Actually it is a hypothesis held by some physicists that black holes may create new universes.
https://www.outerplaces.com/science/ite ... d-universe
https://www.insidescience.org/news/ever ... w-universe
Beyond my skills to analyze, but again I think you are certain about things where you should not be.
God created spacetime so he is from beyond spacetime. So extra-dimensional or even non-material. He could move anywhere. The universe needed a lot of thought - to create live pertaining conditions is not straight forward - God would have required intelligence to solve these problem.[The sun is moved by the galactic centre, the galaxy is moved by the galaxy cluster centre. All this movement we can trace back to an initial movement, the singularity - at that point we require intelligence. The initial setup of the universe must be just right so that life supporting conditions are just right.
I have seen very good versions of the strong anthropic principle, but even these do not necessitate a God. And you presume God and base arguments on that.
And in additional, to move on your own accord requires intelligence and that is what is required from the prime mover.
Sure, that's tautological. To move on your own accord. That you chose to. But we don't know if the movement needed something that moved of its own accord. Perhaps the universe is panspsychic with a tendency to create life, with no transcendant part, external to time.
Neither the WAP or SAP hold.
Yours is a version of the SAP, a theist version, perhaps a deist one.