I know you're playing devils advocate. However that does not negate the fact you have to have faith in such theories, they are not established facts. Hence what I propose is based around established facts and what current science points towards empirically, logically and philosophically. Where as what you are proposing are merely mythical tales thought up by mathamaticians to try and justify the fallacy that a universe created itself or is infinite. To propose them as counter arguments towards what I argue, is tantamount to countering with a fairy tale. My argument is established on current understood facts, ie the universe had a beginning which is accepted by all experts, where as you and some fringe physicists (theoretical physicists) are trying to establish that there was no beginning, these arguments mathematically maybe sound, but observationally, empirically we all know it had a start.
Mathematically yes, experientially, empirically data currently shows otherwise. How can something be infinite if it had a beginning? Without turning to creation myths, where in our physical reality is there an export of the infinite?
Yet Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University, two of the heaviest hitters in the field of theoretical cosmology….They propose a “cyclic universe” model, in which our Big Bang is just one act in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. A trillion years from now, by their calculations, space, time, and matter will crunch down into another fireball and reemerge as another Big Bang. For eternity, the universe will swing between Big Bang and Big Crunch, a cosmic pendulum clock that never winds down. Instead of the universe accelerating into oblivion as current cosmological thinking predicts, their model regards expansion as just a passing phase.
After you critically analyse the mathamatical creation myth, it begs the question what cause initiated the cycle? What started the first bigbang? Was it a result of an infinite universe collapsing then forming new ones with bigbangs? How does an infinite universe collapse (finish) to create a new one? Is that really infinite?
You see I dont have nothing against these theories, as ling as one understands their place and context in a mathamatical reality only.
Common sense does not breakdown but mathematics, science, physics etc at singularity. Hence why we have no empirical proof of imaginary previous collapsing universe. They are beyond our physical reality. In all honesty the big crunch is something which reconcilable with my faith and gods existence, it requires the first cause. Although you claI'm these theories don't require a beginning, in reality we know our reality ie the universe did have a beginning, inescapable fact!
So it was always there? No. There was a big bang. So it had a beginning, from an eternal process of beginning and collapse (end), is that really infinite? What caused the very first universe to begin which then collapsed to initiate this cycle? It still requires a cause, it still hits infinite regression, and it's a logical fallacy to suggest the universe is infinite.
Big crunch-->Big Bang-->Big crunch-->Big Bang…ad infinitum
Event A-->Event B-->Event C-->Event A-->Event B-->Event C…ad infinitum
There is no beginning; no end. Yes, a circle.
It’s also a fact that some theoretical physicists don’t believe in the notion of time, therefore rendering the idea of something “beginning”, to some, irrelevant---an illusion.
So the circle was always there? That's an infinite universe already in existence, but hey, it then collapsed (ended-not infinite then), to form another one. Come on think critically. I have no problem with god creating the universe which then collapses and begins a new universe, one creation ends and new one starts, but without gods as the initial cause, it makes no logical or philosophical sense at all.
My arguments are entirely centred on current established facts which support the philosophical aspects of the argument, ie, current empirical data supports the fact of the beginning, thus philosophical argument surrounding the cause interpret that data support god as a cause. The theories you propose are the counter arguments by physicist who try and establish a infinite or self created universe. Philosophically, empirically they are weak.
I don't think so, logically and philosophically what you dug up does not even scratch my argument. It blue sky thinking, imaginary conclusion based on faith. My argument is based on sound logical and philosophical arguments, supported by current empirical facts.
At singularity, time = 0, space = 0, matter = 0 laws of physics breakdown. Any theories proposing prior to singularity are only sound mathematically, but in reality observations and data clearly show a beginning. So as much as you propose the scenario that there is no beginning, mathematically and within that theories framework it requires no beginning, but in reality the empirical data shows otherwise. Therefore it requires a leap of faith to fall on such theories in the hope it will be proven right. It's pure faith!
So they agree it has a beginning, then propose theories that suggest there was no beginning, only for our current universe there was a beginning as a result of past collapsing universe. However the universe (the circle) was always there contracting and expanding....,..seriously is that so contradictive and way out there? On one hand it has a beginning on the other it was always there and needs no start?......
typical of them to think its irrelevant. Ask them why the universe exists at all? They say it's irrelevant, it just is! As of that is a tangible response.
I will quote an eastern philosopher Alama Iqbal a renowned poet and philosopher respected by all.
He said " Eastern and western philosophers ponder on the question, does god exist? I have a new question for us all instead, does man exist? "
What he meant was that it was illogical to question the existence of god (for him it was an innate logical truth we are all aware of hence why we question it in the first place), those that ask should reflect on within themselves, does man really exist? Can we really empirically establish we exist? This is obviously a deep philosophical statement which requires critical thinking and analysis.