An infinite series of finite causes.

[seer]

Actually, seer, no, there is evidence of the nature of our universe and the observed expansion, and other properties related to Quantum Mechanics. The Big Bang hypothesis is based on this evidence. There are other possible hypothesis based on the same evidence such as: cyclic and Black Hole hypothesis for the origins of our universe, and the possible Multi-verse hypothesis.

Pure nonsense, there is zero actual evidence for a cyclical universe. Or the multi-verse.

My religion and my beliefs are not the issue. The issue is the honest evaluation of the science of physics and cosmology independent of any religious belief, yours nor mine.

Facts are the issue, either this universe was created by God or it wasn't, if it was there can be no strictly natural explanation since the universe could not exist without the active influence and work of God. And the fact that creation points to a Creator as your own religion teaches.

[shunyadragon]

Pure nonsense, there is zero actual evidence for a cyclical universe. Or the multi-verse.

Your assertion based on a religious agenda, and not the current view of Physics and Cosmology based on science without a religious agenda.

For example:

Source: https://physicsworld.com/a/cyclic-universe-could-explain-cosmological-constant/

Cyclic universe could explain cosmological constant
05 May 2006 Belle Dumé
Two theoretical physicists have developed a model that could explain why the cosmological constant takes the small, positive value that it does in today's universe. The value of the constant is responsible for the observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe. However, the new model, developed by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University in the US and Neil Turok at Cambridge University in the UK, will be controversial. It requires that time existed before the Big Bang, assumes that the universe is older than the 14 billion years we think it is, and says that the universe regularly undergoes repeating "cycles" of big bangs and big crunches (Sciencexpress 1126231).

The cosmological constant, or Λ, was first introduced by Einstein in 1917 to explain why the universe did not appear to be expanding. Edwin Hubble later showed that the universe was expanding, causing Einstein to call the constant his “biggest blunder”. But when scientists first measured a value for Λ in 1998, they found it had a tiny, positive value — indicating that acceleration of the universe is speeding up.

However, it is unclear why this value is an incredible 120 orders of magnitude smaller than would be expected if the universe formed under the “standard” Big Bang theory. Solving this mystery is one of the most important challenges in cosmology today.

Physicists have proposed several theories to explain why Λ is so small. One of the most popular — the “anthropic principle” — states that Λ is randomly set and has very different values in different parts of the universe (figure 1). We happen to live in a rare region, or “bubble”, where Λ has the value we observe. This value has allowed stars, planets and therefore life to develop. However, this theory is also unsatisfactory for many scientists because it would be better to be able to calculate Λ from first principles.

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

What dig did I take at you?

#220 “You subjectively label cosmology as being "cutting-edge" because you don't like the current paradigm simply because it doesn't fit your worldview”.

[element771]

#220 “You subjectively label cosmology as being "cutting-edge" because you don't like the current paradigm simply because it doesn't fit your worldview”.

How is that a dig?

[shunyadragon]

How is that a dig?

Dig . . . dig . . . dig . . .

[Tassman]

How is that a dig?

It's a snide and unjustified attribution of false motives, that's how.

[Tassman]

Again Tass, you are talking out your butt, you can't prove this.

There’s nothing to prove, dummy. It’s a matter of accepting the standard definition of a social construct namely: “A concept or perception of something based on the collective views developed and maintained within a society or social group; a social phenomenon or convention originating within and cultivated by society or a particular social group, as opposed to existing inherently or naturally.” - Oxford Dictionary.

Yes, you have faith...

No, it’s a matter of current scientific investigation, nothing to do with “faith”.

More faith...

You, not I, are the only one in this discussion allowing personal faith to dictate what bits of science to accept and what bits of science to reject because they are contrary to personal beliefs

Well this universe does have a beginning, and if finite.

Science does not know this as yet, it continues to be under investigation.

But there is nothing in my belief system that says God could not have created a multi-verse, or even an infinite number of past universes.

There is in fact. Your belief system posits a creator-god to set the whole thing rolling, whereas an eternal universe, one that has always existed, does not need creator god.

No Homer, you faith requires eternal matter and energy.

See above.

[seer]

There’s nothing to prove, dummy. It’s a matter of accepting the standard definition of a social construct namely: “A concept or perception of something based on the collective views developed and maintained within a society or social group; a social phenomenon or convention originating within and cultivated by society or a particular social group, as opposed to existing inherently or naturally.” - Oxford Dictionary.

Of course there is something to prove, you claimed that no god had an independent reality. In other words no god exists. You were talking out your butt and you know it.

No, it’s a matter of current scientific investigation, nothing to do with “faith”.



You, not I, are the only one in this discussion allowing personal faith to dictate what bits of science to accept and what bits of science to reject because they are contrary to personal beliefs

Of course you have faith Tass, you have faith that science will demonstrate that matter and energy are past eternal, even though that is likely impossible.

There is in fact. Your belief system posits a creator-god to set the whole thing rolling, whereas an eternal universe, one that has always existed, does not need creator god.

Where is this eternal universe? It certainly is not this one. Oh right - you have faith...

[seer]

Your assertion based on a religious agenda, and not the current view of Physics and Cosmology based on science without a religious agenda.

Theories are not actual evidence Shuny, which there isn't any of. And talk about a religious agenda hypocrite, your religion requires matter and energy to be past eternal. That is why you keep pushing this with no actual evidence.

[shunyadragon]

Of course you have faith Tass, you have faith that science will demonstrate that matter and energy are past eternal, even though that is likely impossible.

What scientific evidence demonstrates that this is impossible?

Where is this eternal universe? It certainly is not this one. Oh right - you have faith...

Simply an unresolved question in science. It cannot be falsified whether our physical existence is eternal or not. There is no falsifiable limit known that could conclude that our physical existence is finite and/or temporal.

Faith nor science cannot make the determination either way

[seer]

What scientific evidence demonstrates that this is impossible?

How can you ever actually tell that energy is past eternal? How could you ever demonstrate that it didn't have a beginning somewhere in the far distant past?

[Tassman]

Of course there is something to prove, you claimed that no god had an independent reality. In other words no god exists. You were talking out your butt and you know it.

One does not have to prove social constructs exist; they demonstrably do exist, whereas gods do not demonstrably exist. Many gods have been believed to exist over the course of human history but this does not prove they had an independent reality. It only proves that some people believed they did. All the gods have had their 15 minutes of fame.

Of course you have faith Tass, you have faith that science will demonstrate that matter and energy are past eternal, even though that is likely impossible.

It is you, not I who has their mind made up based on personal faith. I’m awaiting evidence either way.

Where is this eternal universe? It certainly is not this one. Oh right - you have faith...

You are judging others by your own standards in that you prefer personal faith over facts.

How can you ever actually tell that energy is past eternal? How could you ever demonstrate that it didn't have a beginning somewhere in the far distant past?

How can you be so certain that it did have a beginning, when the question has yet to be resolved? Oh, I know, the bible tells you so.

[seer]

One does not have to prove social constructs exist; they demonstrably do exist, whereas gods do not demonstrably exist. Many gods have been believed to exist over the course of human history but this does not prove they had an independent reality. It only proves that some people believed they did. All the gods have had their 15 minutes of fame.

That still is irrational, even if some gods are merely social constructs, it still does not follow that all gods are merely social constructs with no independent reality. Again Tass you have no way of knowing this, you are making a metaphysical claim with no proof.

How can you be so certain that it did have a beginning, when the question has yet to be resolved? Oh, I know, the bible tells you so.

Unless you can show that energy existed before the hot big bang, and that that energy gave rise to this universe you are dead in the water. But I will leave you with your faith in the great god - eternal energy...

[JimL]

That still is irrational, even if some gods are merely social constructs, it still does not follow that all gods are merely social constructs with no independent reality. Again Tass you have no way of knowing this, you are making a metaphysical claim with no proof.





Unless you can show that energy existed before the hot big bang, and that that energy gave rise to this universe you are dead in the water. But I will leave you with your faith in the great god - eternal energy...

Actually it's the other way around seer. Until you can show that energy didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, causing it, and giving rise to our universe, then your argument for god is dead in the water. What we know from experience is that nothing comes from nothing, what we don't know is if beyond our experience something can come from nothing. If you are going to argue the latter, then it's up to you to show it, not us.

[element771]

Dig . . . dig . . . dig . . .

Rock on Shuny