RJG wrote:There are NO 'logical' contradictions with "always existing" (i.e. having no beginning).
Consul wrote:Having always existed is not the same as having no beginning! For if even spacetime has a temporal boundary in the past, it has always existed in the sense that there is no time in the past when it didn't exist.
Yes I don't disagree, BUT the purpose of my "( )" was to better clarify the meaning and context of my phrase "always existing". My equating it with "having no beginning", means that it was "NOT created", which is my point and the focus of this discussion.
Devans99 wrote:Nothing is not really nothing in modern physics.
So then are you now admitting that 'something' (not nothing) has "always existed"? ...or are you sticking with the logical contradiction X is not-X (nothing is not-nothing)?
If you agree that 'something' has "always existed
", then you are 1/3 of the way to agreeing with me!
Devans99 wrote:Transitory quantum fluctuations in the void (which are well established experimentally) may have caused some sort of chain reaction that led to the creation of matter from negative gravitational energy.
Are "transitory quantum fluctuations" 'something' or nothing? ...and where/what is this "void"? ...does it 'exist', or not-exist? ...is it 'something', or nothing?
Devans99 wrote:As far as an initial creation event (creation of matter and time) then some sort of space (not necessary our space) seems like a prerequisite... but this space could exist timelessly (and thus does not need to be created).
So then why does 'matter' and 'time' NEED to be created? You seemingly accept the notion (possibility) here of an "always existing" (non-created) 'space'? ...but then close your eyes to the same possibility with matter and time. Why?
It seems here that you now agree that 'space' has "always existed
" (was not created), and if so then you may be 2/3 of the way to agreeing with me!
Devans99 wrote:We know from the Big Bang theory that as we go back in time towards the Bang, time runs slower and slower until the point of the initial singularity (where time may not have been running at all), yet the Bang still Banged. So it seems that things can still happen without time (plus the photon example I mentioned).
If the Big Bang created the WHAT/WHERE/WHEN (matter/space/time), then:
1. WHERE did the Big Bang bang? ...if it had 'nowhere' to bang, then where
did it bang?
2. WHAT banged?, ...if there was 'nothing' to bang, then what
3. WHEN did it bang? ...if it had no 'starting point' (no 'before' the Bang), then when
did it bang?
It is totally non-sensical ('logically' impossible) to conclude that the Big Bang (or ANY event/happening for that matter) could 'create' matter/space/time. For the creation of 'anything' requires the pre-existence of matter/space/time.
RJG wrote:There are NO 'logical' contradictions with "always existing" (i.e. having no beginning). The only contradictions lie within our flawed 'indoctrinations'.
Devans99 wrote:What about all the logical contradictions I listed in the OP?
Your use of "infinity" invalides your logic. Infinity cannot be used as a variable or term in math or logic, so as to then be compared or related to anything. It has no fixed 'value'. You might as well be using the word "forever". As the great @Karpel Tunnel
eloquently once said "If you cut infinity in half, you still get infinity"
(...or something to that effect).
Devans99 wrote:1. There is no coming into existence event for the particle; how can the particle exist if it never started existing?
Why not? What logic refutes this? Why MUST the existence of something have a 'start'?
Just because we have been indoctrinated to (falsely) believe that all things MUST have a start, there is absolutely NO LOGIC that refutes this "always existing" (having no starting point).
Logic is brutal on our indoctrinations.