A Naturally Eternal Universe is the only option that is Scientific and Logical

This presentation shares why a naturally eternal Universe is the only logical and scientific option that can account for the existence of the Universe.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Cosmology
• Universe
• science
• logic
• Deism
• Pantheism
• Panentheism
• Theism

[iconoclastic23]

@WarVideo The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. It's an explanation of how the universe came to be in its current state, and it's one of the most voluminously evidenced theories in all of science.

[heavymetaldeath4life]

What about Lawrence Krauss's lecture on "Universe out of nothing"?

[KevZen2000]

Dhorpatan is right here. The universe has no beginning or end. If the universe, has a beginning, then you need some outside supernatural being.

[JackMorganUK1]

@Dhorptan non-existence should rage on forever, meaning the Universe is technically infinite in regard to the fact that it is still being made, and forever will be.

This can be observed by quantum physics, which states that things that are very small behave differently. I think this is how things behave in the void, and the only reason why atoms break the rules is because they are so small.

There you go, I'm done.

[JackMorganUK1]

@Dhorptan chain pattern would leave a spherical space where the void cannot get to. In here, time, space and the laws of physics form to keep the atoms left over from the explosions from disappearing or exploding.

From this, and the energy that was created from the explosions, the elements form, and from that, the Universe was created.

Now, if atoms are continually being created from these explosions, and the void is boundless in nature, the conflict between existence and (cont'd)

[JackMorganUK1]

@Dhorptan think about tilting my hand. In fact, there would be no space, so the platform, me, and the ball would be crushed into nothingness.

But what happens when an atom is split? It explodes. So, what if one day (or one instant), an atom popped into existence, due to there being no law to say it can't? It would be destroyed instantly, and explode. But, the explosion would create more atoms in its wake, meaning more explosions, and more atoms, and so on.

Eventually, the explosive (cont'd)

[JackMorganUK1]

@Dhorptan I have an alternative explanation as to how the Universe could be infinite.

First, a thought experiment. What is outside of the Universe? Many people would say "nothing", but what is "nothing"? What does it imply?

For instance, if I were to stand atop a platform outside of the Universe holding a ball, and I tilt my hand to let the ball fall out of my hand, what would happen? There is no gravity, so the ball wouldn't move. There is no time either, so I wouldn't be able to (cont'd)

[Xeletoph]

*con't* Change being the only constant we find in our universe, in and of its self suggests that any notion of eternity is absurd. Nothing that is changing constantly can be eternal, because change suggests beginnings and endings. The laws of thermodynamics suggest that is the nature of things in our universe to break down to entropy and disorder. This massive and constant destabilization of matter means that nothing in of or from this universe can be truly eternal or infinite.

[Xeletoph]

This doesn't work. If the universe were infinite, then the stars would also be infinite - the sky would be so bright that looking up at it would be scorch our retinas.

Space it self may indeed go far beyond the reaches of our universe. it may go on for 100's and zillions of light years; but even that falls short of a true eternity. Red shifted galaxies also suggest that the universe didn't always exist as it does now.

Examples from nature and cosmos show that change is the only constant.

[Jasonator1000]

@Dhorpatan "moving of the space would still only be conceptual/epistemic"

That's like saying that the properties of the particles in motion aren't really there, but are just concepts.

"Between the actual and the conceptual."

Conceptual is a kind of actual. Duh! Your concepts actually exist. If they don't then you don't actually have them, in which case there's nothing going on in your head right now as you speak those words. Though if that was true it would actually explain a lot.

[tolkien1138]

Even an eternal universe needs an explanation of its existence. The universe exists but not *necessarily* so, since it can be easily shown there are conceptually different universes (e.g. one where unicorns exist). The explanation for why this no-unicorn universe exists while the unicorn universe does not is not to be found in the necessity of the universe's own nature, ie in the way 2+2 cannot equal anything other than 4. Thus the universe is contingent & the explanation must be external to it.

[Dhorpatan]

@Jasonator1000

The moving of the space would still only be conceptual/epistemic, not ontological. You are a quack, so you refuse to make the fundamental distinction between abstractions and concretes. Which is to your advantage, since you are an Occultist, so you need to blur the line between the real and the imaginary. Between the actual and the conceptual.