Was there a beginning?

[Michael 345]

How do you know that life began? Maybe it has always been around. Is your life finite or infinite?

Maybe it has always been around
Doubt life would be possible without atoms
How do you know that life began
We currently have a lot of it around at the moment
Is your life finite or infinite
I'll go with finite

Apparently, yes. It's known as the Big Bang.

Thought Big Bang was out of fashion now (I understand it was a throw away line but caught on)
Terminology has moved to Rapid Expansion
Which I think would fit more with neutrons forming from nothing
When enough remained present, instead of winking out you, have your big hot dense ball
Add that tiny mint extra
Vola Rapid Expanding (in this case) Man
Edit
I put Rapid Expanding Dinner here but video cut out before expansion happened
Our case Proto energy which when cooling formed building blocks of the Universe

 

[river]

Contemplating the universe is an interesting pass time and so I thought I would start this tread to discuss various views of the nature of the universe.

Was there a beginning? How did it start? Or has it always existed?
Will it ever end?
Is it finite or infinite?
How did life begin?

Responses can address those questions of pose new questions for discussion.

My view, the universe has always existed, there was no beginning, and it is infinite and eternal. Any objections?

None

How did life begin ? As an extremely small living form , Alge . Photosynthesis And life forms from deep within the crust of the Earth . Hence the animal ( deep crust biological forms that use mineral energy , chemical energy as their energy source , taking energy from minerals to power themselves ) , and photosynthesis , plant life . Both combine to produce life forms that are both animal and plant .

 

[DaveC426913]

None

How did life begin ? As an extremely small living form , Alge . Photosynthesis And life forms from deep within the crust of the Earth . Hence the animal ( deep crust biological forms that use mineral energy , chemical energy as their energy source , taking energy from minerals to power themselves ) , and photosynthesis , plant life . Both combine to produce life forms that are both animal and plant .

Photosynthesis evolved about 3.4 million years ago.
Algae did not evolve until a mere billion years ago.

 

[DaveC426913]

Photosynthesis evolved about 3.4 *billion years ago.

 

[Dicart]

Was there a beginning?
How did it start?
Or has it always existed?
Will it ever end?
Is it finite or infinite?
How did life begin?

My view, the universe has always existed, there was no beginning, and it is infinite and eternal. Any objections?

My curently view :

Yes there was a beginning.
It was created by some creature of some other dimension, we call him/she/it/etc, God.
Yes God has always existed because in his dimension time do not exist.
It can end but all depends on the will of the creator.
It is finite in space but infinite in time.
Life began when the creator wanted to have something more perfect than his angels.

But your answer is also right.

the universe has always existed, there was no beginning, and it is infinite and eternal

You are speaking from the inside of the univers, so yes, the universe "has always existed" (with no universe it is nonsens to talk about the universe...)
"There was no beginning", because of course there was nobody to observe this beginning (the creator is not "somebody).
"It is infinite" (in space), sure, because there can not be any observer that can attein any limit.
"It is eternal" because nobody will ever see the end of this universe, so yes it could stay forever there, motionless, after "the use" of the universe (when nobody care anymore about the universe).

 

[Dicart]

You should be aware that your questions are outside the realm of science.

Questions like 'was there a beginning' are not things science addresses. Thats philosophy.

Thats the first step a thinker should make.

Why philosophy is considered the mother of all science?

https://philosophy-question.com/lib...sophy-is-considered-the-mother-of-all-science

Before you can answer with hard science (quantification etc) you have to decide what is rational and what is not.
Philosophy is the first step.
Our actual science is based on the work of centuries of philosopher who stated was is obvious and was is not (no IA will never be able to do this) and on the possibilies they could be wrong (and so permit to evolve).
If you only rely on what is right at some era, you stay stucked with your false believes.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes there was a beginning.
It was created by some creature of some other dimension, we call him/she/it/etc, God.

That's just kicking the can down the road.

If it was created by something else, then it wasn't the beginning.
What was the beginning of the creature?

Yes God has always existed because in his dimension time do not exist.

Then God is a product of the dimension in which he lives.
So how was he created and how did that dimension begin?

 

[Michael 345]

other dimension, we call him/she/it/etc, God.

I prefer physics, but if you wish to
anthropomorphise physics go ahead it counts for nothing in speculations or calculations

The rest of the post is ? ,<---- lost for a definition

 

[Dicart]

That's just kicking the can down the road.

If it was created by something else, then it wasn't the beginning.
What was the beginning of the creature?

Then God is a product of the dimension in which he lives.
So how was he created and how did that dimension begin?

I already answered this question.
Time doesent exists in the selfcreated dimension of "the creature/creator" (he creates himself "because" he is the one who is)

 

[Michael 345]

he is the one who is)

Shadow of Jan has surfaced

 

[Dicart]

Shadow of Jan has surfaced

Not sure what you mean, but if you are clever, you will understand that this is the only possibility.
If you deny this fundamental attribution of The Creator (To be the one (and only one...) who is) you are jaleous of him.
And the creator is jaleous too... and can not accept a second one who is "the one who is" (I AM THAT I AM).

 

[Michael 345]

Not sure what you mean, but if you are clever, you will understand that this is the only possibility.
If you deny this fundamental attribution of The Creator (To be the one (and only one...) who is) you are jaleous of him.
And the creator is jaleous too... and can not accept a second one who is "the one who is".

Jan was a member of the SciForum and his mantra was "god is"

But why anthropomorphise physics??? Physics does all what you attribute god as having done except physics is not sentinent

Where in the book How to Create a Universe does it indicate first obtain a god?

Calling physics god plus giving this god a personality with no evidence as backup is plain silly

 

[Dicart]

Jan was a member of the SciForum and his mantra was "god is"

He was rigth, there is no rational possibility to think differently.
God is.
He is the eternal (said differently).

But why anthropomorphise physics??? Physics does all what you attribute god as having done except physics is not sentinent

You think you dont do it.
The only difference is that you consider that "the nature" did what "the creator" did.
At some level you believe "nature" is " the creator" so you believe in a false god.

Where in the book How to Create a Universe does it indicate first obtain a god?

Again.
You dont need to consider this question if you understant that "God is".
Look : It is like the mathematical theory that say that within a complex system there is ONE invariant (Emily Noether) or the theory that says roughly that
there is always one assumption that cant be prooved (Goedel) and Church's...

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible.

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

Employing a diagonal argument, Gödel's incompleteness theorems were the first of several closely related theorems on the limitations of formal systems. They were followed by Tarski's undefinability theorem on the formal undefinability of truth, Church's proof that Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable, and Turing's theorem that there is no algorithm to solve the halting problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

 

[Michael 345]

If you deny this fundamental attribution of The Creator (To be the one (and only one...) who is) you are jaleous of him.

Really? I am jealous of a god? You do have some strange ideas!!!!!!

And the creator is jaleous too

Seriously? god? jealous? Bad enough believing in invisible god in the clouds without also lumbering your fantasy with human attributes

 

[Dicart]

Really? I am jealous of a god? You do have some strange ideas!!!!!!

It is just fact, but you are not aware of it.

Seriously? god? jealous? Bad enough believing in invisible god in the clouds without also lumbering your fantasy with human attributes

I just explained you what "jaleous" mean.
You can not say : It is "nature" or it is "baal" or it is etc, you only need to accept that "God is" (the invariant, eternal, unproovable (invisible...)) and all become clear.
If it is "nature" who created "nature" ?
If it is "baal", who created "baal" ?
If it is "etc", who created "etc" ?

No, you understand that "God is" and he is also autocreated (because he is... this is looped logic)
Very simple to understand in my opinion.

 

[Michael 345]

At some level you believe "nature" is "

You appear to know a lot about me???

Physics "is" if you wish. Physics is the label given to the processes of how things work

Nature is the label given the the interaction between life forms other than ourselves. Which is strange because we as a life form should be included but the claim is "we are different"

We are not different, but that's the claim

 

[Dicart]

You appear to know a lot about me???

Looks like.

Physics "is" if you wish. Physics is the label given to the processes of how things work

No....
Physics "is nothing" but a way to think the real as observed by humans and it represent what they understand in a usefull way of the world.
Physic do not exists without humans.
Physic, like baal or the nature has not created the world, they are the product of the human imagination.

Nature is the label given the the interaction between life forms other than ourselves. Which is strange because we as a life form should be included but the claim is "we are different"

No, nature is some metaphysical concept, not restricted to life forms, it is related to matter.
The "laws of physic" are inherited from the assumption that there exists some "law of nature".

 

[Michael 345]

It is just fact, but you are not aware of it

I am not aware of it OK? but you are?? The world you live in makes Alice's world look dull

you only need to accept that "God is" (the invariant, eternal, unproovable

Well I don't accept and it appears yous has accepted the unproovable

Good for yous

If it is "nature" who created "nature" ?

Physics created the Universe. Physics is not a thing in existence, physics is a PROCESS and scientists watch photons display this process, popping in and out of existence from nothing, all the time

 

[Dicart]

Physics created the Universe. Physics is not a thing in existence, physics is a PROCESS and scientists watch photons display this process, popping in and out of existence from nothing, all the time

Ok then, your "false god" is called "physic".

 

[Dicart]

Well I don't accept and it appears yous has accepted the unproovable

Every modern mathematician has actually accepted this fact.
In a coherent system, you have ALWAYS something that rermains not proovable.
And applying this to cosmogony seems silly for you ?