Existence

Hi Bob, Sorry for the confusion, let me see if I can clearify it for you.The universe has always existed in some form.The universe has not always existed in its present form.In the past the universe began to exist in the form we see it today.In other words the universe as we see it today was assembled from existing materials in the past.Now if you have a mechanism whereby matter and energy can begin to exist from an absence of anything (non-existence) I am all ears.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Your reading comprehension if failing you these days.Could you bold and underline the part where I equated Hawking talking about the universe and existence being the same thing.In Message 26In Message 18 I asked you: Which you ignored.I will here repeat the quote from Stephen Hawking, adding emphasis.

quote:

---

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning,
about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.

---

SourceDoes Stephen Hawking in this lecture which I quoted, say:"the universe has not existed forever"?
"it had a beginning"?
"Yet it is now taken for granted"?If the universe has not existed forever that means it had to begin to exist.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Noone proposed this in this thread so why are you asking how matter and energy began to exist again?
It seems you don't have the honesty to address the actual position of those debating you and you'd rather beat up a straw man, not that I should have expected anymore from you.Moreover other, your "solution" only pushes the problem farther back, where did the materials come from?

Hi Son, Either matter and energy is eternal, that is it has always existed or it began to exist.This thread is about existence and beginning to exist.From the OP:

quote:

---

If existence is not responsible for bringing into existence all that exists, then what is?

​

There is existence (all things exist) and the opposite of that is non-existence (no thing exists). There is no known mechanism whereby existence can begin to exist from non-existence.

---

The universe is energy and matter which are interchangable. So if they have not always existed what is the mechanism for their beginning to exist? Then present the mechanism whereby those materials could begin to exist.I argue they have always existed in some form.Science tells me the universe began to exist.Yet Science has no mechanism whereby the materials that compose the universe began that formed the universe as we know it.Without a mechanism for those things to begin to exist they must have always existed in some form or some entity outside of the universe caused those materials to begin to exist.I have proposed eternal existence in which the universe was formed and exists.It was recorded thousands of years ago that such an existence did exist.Science has produced no mechanism whereby what exists today could begin to exist.There are several areas of study but none of them have any evidence of what existed at T=0 or where it came from as we only know the math does not work, and it was trillions of degrees kevin according to Son Goku.It is safe to therefore conclude that any hypothesis that tries to explain what existed at T=0 is not science but a belief system.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Those ancient records don't propose a mechanism either, nor do they even suggest a method by which a mechanism could be discovered. I expect that the scientific method is more likely to come up with a mechanism than poring over ancient records.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

No, it doesn't. We've gone over this with you multiple times. Yes and no. Time, the defining factor of that "forever" word, is part of the Universe. The other "parts" of the Universe have existed at every moment of time. Time has an absolute minimum value - there is no "before" T=0 any more than there is a location farther North than the North Pole, so the Universe has not existed for infinite time, but the Universe has existed for all of time, because time is part of the Universe.There is no moment in time that the Universe did not exist.When something "begins" in the way you are using the term, you can refer to one point in time where the thing in question does not exist, and another point in time where it does. At some point in time between the two, the thing had a "beginning."That's not the case with the Universe, because time, the very dimension that allows such concepts as causality and beginnings and endings, is part of the Universe. Every point in time contains the entirety of the Universe; there is no alternate point in time where the Universe does not exist. It did not have a "beginning" in the way that you use the term; instead, there is simply an absolute minimum value to the dimension of time.You're still trying to fit the Universe into the intuitive experience of a human being. The Universe doesn't play by your rules, it doesn't have to make intuitive sense to you, English words are imprecise because they aren't mathematics, and just as with the Bible you seek an interpretation of the words used that allows you to continue to believe in a nonsensical, baseless bullshit model of the Universe.You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what Hawking is talking about, you don't know what cavediver is talking about, you don't even know what I'm talking about, and in a massive demonstration of hubris you claim to know exactly what all of us are saying when we keep telling you that you're getting it wrong every single time. You're like a kid in school who flunks every test and somehow still thinks he has a firm grasp of the material! And then tries to tell the teacher he's wrong!What is wrong between your ears, old man?

What the current theory says is not that the universe itself always existed or that it was created from non-existance. It's just that there hasn't been in time in the past when the universe didn't exist, so it wasn't really created from non-existance (as we would understand it anyway). However time doesn't extend indefinitely in the past, thus the universe hasn't existed "forever".This conception of time may seem conter-intuitive but nonetheless the theory of the Big-Bang that explains it has predictions that so far have been verified (Cosmic Background Radiation, repartition of elements...) that's why it's considered scientific. If your explanation can make those kind of predictions, we could consider it but as you're presenting it, it's worthless.

Hmmmm...I thought this universe is a product of the Big Bang. And has it's beginning 14 some billions years ago. In the past the universe began from the big bang. The materials I assume you mean matter? If so this matter was also a product of the big bang. Heres my understanding of it, I'm sure Cave diver and others will cringe!
The "mechanism" whereby matter and energy began to "exist" is called the big bang. It was not a mechanism though but a quantum event. The matter and energy did not "begin to exist" in sofar as it was a emergent property of the big bang manifesting energy into the physical reality we experience in this universe. It is one theory the fundamental properties of these particles of matter are made up of a plankes size fibers of woven membranes vibrating at specific resonance in 11 dimensions, to give rise to the different manifestations of this energy. There are fundamental forces that are responsible for how this energy and matter are responsible for everything from stars to apples. In our particular universe these physical laws are what allows scientist to unravel these processes. It is not intuitive for us to be able to imagine how this could stem from "nothing". But that is because our concept of "nothing" is incomplete when it comes to quantum levels. There are particles of matter and anti-matter that as you say spring from nothing, exist and annulate each other. There is a theory that the whole universe is like a holograph, discrete and complete bits of information composed from ever smaller bits and yet on every level from the quantum to the cosmic it is all unified.It could very well be as simple as Our current universe exist because it wants to exist. If it did not then that would be the status quo and you would not be here to ponder it.

This reply makes it very clear that you don't even know what you are saying. You have no grasp of the scientific concepts.You don't know if you think the universe equates existence or does not equate existence.You are incapable of even explaining to us what you truly mean by existence.So have fun. I knew trying to debate you was useless, you will always refuse to put aside your preconceived ideas in order to gain an iota of knowledge.Oh, since you have decided Hawking is the penultimate authority on this subject, you agree with him on everything on this subject. I guess your bullshit theory is no longer tenable even in your eyes?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I though Hawking said it had a beginning? So now the quote doesn't support your argument?Could you make up your mind one way or the other?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi cavediver,I was in a hurry to begin with but I have a few questions. Do you believe that existence is eternal? Are you now saying that the universe was not a self contained universe containing everything in it at T=10^-43?In Message 306 in answer to my questions you said: From Message 13
From Message 311From Message 180
Have you changed your view since you made the preceeding statements? What is a concept?I know there is said to be a concept of spacetime which combines space and time into a single abstract "space", termed spacetime.What is a time-like path through space-time?I can understand how time can measure duration but I would think a path would be measured by distance. Where did I go wrong. So then, why are you still replying to my posts braying like a jackass?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Thedoric, But I was not presenting the Stephen Hawking quote to support that the universe had always existed.I did present it as evidence that Science says the universe had a beginning.Maybe when you get out of kindergarden you will be able to understand the difference in the two statements above.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Wow!! Resorting to personal attack? I am hurt, stung, destroyed.Why don't you reread your posts, figure out what your actual argument is, remove the contradictions and inconsistencies and try again.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi Rahvin, Are you saying I made the quote up and put words in the lecture Stephen Hawking gave?I don't care whether the statements are true or false Stephen Hawking did make the statements.

quote:

---

"the universe has not existed forever"?
"it had a beginning"?
"Yet it is now taken for granted"?

---

So who is the one relying on their belief system now?You don't believe what he said is fact so you reject it and translate it to suit yourself. How can the universe exist in time when time is a part of the universe according to you?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Not at all. I'm saying you didn't correctly understand his meaning.And I don;t dispute that. But let me put this plainly: when Stephen Hawking or any other physicist uses English or other normal spoken language to try to explain cosmology, they are dumbing it down for you and me. They sacrifice a lot of accuracy, knowing that people like you will "interpret" their words with additional meaning, because you and I won't be able to understand the actual, accurate, precise mathematics.The difference is like an engineer saying "steel is a really strong building material," as compared to the actual, specific and accurate tensile strength of a steel I-beam. You're an idiot, ICANT. We have actual physicists on this board who do understand cosmology on the level of the specific, accurate mathematics. When they tell you that you aren't correctly understanding Hawking's words, you should listen.Exactly: the Universe does not exist in time, time is part of the Universe. If it were possible to "look" at the Universe from the "outside," you'd be looking at all of time along with all of the spacial dimensions, all the mass/energy, all of the quantum fields that are our Universe. Time and space are parts of the Universe just like latitude and longitude are parts of a globe - you can't describe the globe "outside" of its latitude or longitude any more than you can describe the Universe "outside" of time or space.Your concept of the Universe seems to be that the Universe is a collection of "stuff" inside of a container of space and time. That's absolutely false.