The Universe

[Red Wine]

Hi I'm new here. Can anybody tell me how far back the universe's existence extends? I'm just thinking it can't be indefinitely, as surely sound's weird to me that we're in one big 'effect' that had no cause. So just wondering if we can prove scientifically how the universe started, if indeed it started at all. I mean it seems to me a fairly fundamental question if there are fundamental questions; seems a biggie. Thanks.

[oxmixmudd]

Hi I'm new here. Can anybody tell me how far back the universe's existence extends? I'm just thinking it can't be indefinitely, as surely sound's weird to me that we're in one big 'effect' that had no cause. So just wondering if we can prove scientifically how the universe started, if indeed it started at all. I mean it seems to me a fairly fundamental question if there are fundamental questions; seems a biggie. Thanks.

Current theory places the beginning of the Universe some 14 billion (13.7) years ago. This figure is not absolute, as there are still a lot of questions, but that value seems to be the best current estimate. The 1st cause of its inception is currently unknown, but evidence is that the universe began as a single small point of infinitely dense 'stuff' that suddenly expanded and became what we observe today. This theory of formation is called the Big Bang, although that name was given by its detractors and one should not be lulled into thinking it was some kind of explosion as we know explosions today.

I will not try to go too far beyond this at this point. There are a lot of complicated details, but they would be meaningless to you until you have a basic understanding of the theory itself. You could begin reading on it at the Wikipedia article:

wikipedia:Universe

Just doing a google on "Big Bang" will yield several articles on the theory. Do you have a science background? If not, you may want to familiarize youself with a basic understanding of astronomy and the kinds of small and large scale structures in the universe (stars, dust and gas clouds, clusters, galaxies etc), what they are and how they are thought to form. Are you approaching this from a theological perspective, or just general curiousity?

Good luck. Feel free to ask further questions if you wish on the subject.


Jim

[Red Wine]

Current theory places the beginning of the Universe some 14 billion (13.7) years ago. This figure is not absolute, as there are still a lot of questions, but that value seems to be the best current estimate. The 1st cause of its inception is currently unknown, but evidence is that the universe began as a single small point of infinitely dense 'stuff' that suddenly expanded and became what we observe today. This theory of formation is called the Big Bang, although that name was given by its detractors and one should not be lulled into thinking it was some kind of explosion as we know explosions today.

I will not try to go too far beyond this at this point. There are a lot of complicated details, but they would be meaningless to you until you have a basic understanding of the theory itself. You could begin reading on it at the Wikipedia article:

wikipedia:Universe

Just doing a google on "Big Bang" will yield several articles on the theory. Do you have a science background? If not, you may want to familiarize youself with a basic understanding of astronomy and the kinds of small and large scale structures in the universe (stars, dust and gas clouds, clusters, galaxies etc), what they are and how they are thought to form. Are you approaching this from a theological perspective, or just general curiousity?

Good luck. Feel free to ask further questions if you wish on the subject.


Jim

Awesome. Thanks Oxi. My interest is theological. I always like to look at both sides. Even though I have theological beliefs, I intrinsically I guess (or upbringing? lol) play the Devil's Advocate to all my beliefs. I really like to start keeping up on latest developments. And I'm a layman in the science realm, so wouldn't mind being an armchair spectator lol. Thanks again bro. :)

[Jorge]

Hi I'm new here. Can anybody tell me how far back the universe's existence extends? I'm just thinking it can't be indefinitely, as surely sound's weird to me that we're in one big 'effect' that had no cause. So just wondering if we can prove scientifically how the universe started, if indeed it started at all. I mean it seems to me a fairly fundamental question if there are fundamental questions; seems a biggie. Thanks.

Hi, RW. From O-Mudd you received the following : "Current theory places the beginning of the Universe some 14 billion (13.7) years ago. This figure is not absolute, as there are still a lot of questions, but that value seems to be the best current estimate..."

What O-Mudd neglected to mention was that this is the conclusion of Naturalistic science. Ask a YEC and the answer will be roughly 6,000 years old. Which answer you decide to accept depends on a number of things, primary of which is what world view you have as a foundation.

Jorge

[Ursus maritimus]

I'm just thinking it can't be indefinitely, as surely sound's weird to me that we're in one big 'effect' that had no cause.

What sounds weird? That the universe might have always existed with no beginning? Or that the universe might have had a beginning, but have had no cause?

At any rate, either of these sounds plausible to me; in fact, the idea that the universe could have a cause sounds weird to me.

[Jorge]

At any rate, either of these sounds plausible to me; in fact, the idea that the universe could have a cause sounds weird to me.

Basic logic dictates that anything not eternal must have had a beginning. The natural universe, as far as science can tell us, isn't eternal. Ergo, the universe had a beginning. If it had a beginning then it had a cause outside of itself since nothing that begins to exist may be the cause of its own existence. Thus, there's nothing 'weird' about a cause for the universe. It would be extremely weird, indeed, if the universe didn't have a cause.

Jorge

[Ursus maritimus]

Hello, Jorge.

Basic logic dictates that anything not eternal must have had a beginning.

I would say that this is the definition of "not eternal", but in any event we appear to agree here.

The natural universe, as far as science can tell us, isn't eternal. Ergo, the universe had a beginning.

Indeed, I also agree. I will point out, though, that the conclusions of science are tentative and subject to change based on new observations. However, I will admit that the most logical conclusion on the data that we have is that the universe has only existed for a finite time.

If it had a beginning then it had a cause outside of itself since nothing that begins to exist may be the cause of its own existence.

I would agree that nothing can cause its own existence, mainly because I don't understand what such a thing would mean. However, as far as I know it is possible that the universe may not have a cause at all; it may simply exist.

Thus, there's nothing 'weird' about a cause for the universe. It would be extremely weird, indeed, if the universe didn't have a cause.

Usually when one speaks of a "cause" and an "effect" one means that the "cause" must precede the "effect" in time. However, since most people assume that time itself began with the universe, one cannot speak of a "cause" preceding the universe -- there was no time for this cause to have existed. This is why I have trouble conceptualizing a cause for the universe -- I don't really understand what it would mean for the universe to have a "cause".

[Soundsurfr]

If it had a beginning then it had a cause outside of itself since nothing that begins to exist may be the cause of its own existence.

[Mark_S]

Awesome. Thanks Oxi. My interest is theological. I always like to look at both sides. Even though I have theological beliefs, I intrinsically I guess (or upbringing? lol) play the Devil's Advocate to all my beliefs. I really like to start keeping up on latest developments. And I'm a layman in the science realm, so wouldn't mind being an armchair spectator lol. Thanks again bro. :)

This is always a fun topic around here, and you'll see friendly banter from just about all sides of this topic. From creationists who believe in an "old" universe to those who believe in a very young world. We also have got a number evolutionists in both the Christian and non-Christian camps. Oh and Welcome to Tweb!

[Barry Desborough]

Hi, RW. From O-Mudd you received the following : "Current theory places the beginning of the Universe some 14 billion (13.7) years ago. This figure is not absolute, as there are still a lot of questions, but that value seems to be the best current estimate..."

What O-Mudd neglected to mention was that this is the conclusion of Naturalistic science. Ask a YEC and the answer will be roughly 6,000 years old. Which answer you decide to accept depends on a number of things, primary of which is what world view you have as a foundation.

Jorge

Jorge, give us an example of a single set of observations and how they are interpreted differently according to a creationist metaphysic and your alleged... You probably know the rest by heart by now. Do you want me to put it in my signature?

[wattsr1]

Awesome. Thanks Oxi. My interest is theological. I always like to look at both sides. Even though I have theological beliefs, I intrinsically I guess (or upbringing? lol) play the Devil's Advocate to all my beliefs. I really like to start keeping up on latest developments. And I'm a layman in the science realm, so wouldn't mind being an armchair spectator lol. Thanks again bro. :)

Gidday Red Wine,

Many of us here are laymen with an interest in science (and areas beyond science).

Welcome to the board.


Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

I think Jorge once took introductory lessons from JohnMartin.

[wattsr1]

Jorge, give us an example of a single set of observations and how they are interpreted differently according to a creationist metaphysic and your alleged... You probably know the rest by heart by now. Do you want me to put it in my signature?

Gidday BD,

What is so funny about such lines from Jorge is that Jorge interprets fossils as we do, that is, as the remains of ancient organisms. Yet there are still people who believe that fossils were put there by God to test man.

Now I reckon Jorge would waive all his appeals to foundations, metaphysics, and ideology to argue that theories on fossilization are good science.

Foundations, metaphysics and ideology are only used by Jorge, against theories he does not like, never against theories he likes.


Regards, Roland

[Barry Desborough]

Gidday BD,

What is so funny about such lines from Jorge is that Jorge interprets fossils as we do, that is, as the remains of ancient organisms. Yet there are still people who believe that fossils were put there by God to test man.

Now I reckon Jorge would waive all his appeals to foundations, metaphysics, and ideology to argue that theories on fossilization are good science.

Foundations, metaphysics and ideology are only used by Jorge, against theories he does not like, never against theories he likes.


Regards, Roland

Yes, that occurred to me too. We need to find a YEC who believes the Devil put rocks shaped like T-Rex bones into the ground and let them thrash out their metaphyicses (metaphaeces?)

[Jugulum]

I think Jorge once took introductory lessons from JohnMartin.

No, it was just a slightly run-on sentence. It used standard definitions for all the words. It's not hard to understand--you just have to read it slowly. My sentences are like that sometimes, too.

Here it is again, with the word "since" changed:

If [the universe] had a beginning then it had a cause outside of itself. Why? Because nothing that begins to exist may be the cause of its own existence.