New question about the big bang & the cosmological argument
- derrick09
- Valued Member
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:47 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Southeastern Kentucky
New question about the big bang & the cosmological argument
Hello guys, I recently came across this headline, http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/ ... birth.html It's about a recent finding within the universe's cosmic background radiation that suggests that the initial singularity event that sparked the creation of the universe was not the first one, but there were other previous explosions that went on before the big one that sparked our universe. Now if that is the case, does that suggest that the universe is eternal? Or if it doesn't will it hurt the cosmological argument in any way? In my opinion, if it does NOT show that our universe is eternal than I don't think it will hurt the cosmological argument in any way, it won't necessarily help it or make it stronger, but it won't hurt it. Also, here is the link to the peer reviewed article on this finding.http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706 Thanks and GB.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 560
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:44 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
Re: New question about the big bang & the cosmological argum
I think apologists and philosophers have sufficiently proven that an infinite regression is illogical and therefore an eternal universe isn't the correct solution here. I don't think this shows that the universe is eternal either.
Young, Restless, Reformed
- jlay
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3613
- Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Re: New question about the big bang & the cosmological argum
If the universe were eternal, then how would we have ever arrived at today? You can't get to a fixed point in time, (like the moment you are reading this) if there is infinite time before.
If anything, what it shows is how little we really know about the cosmos. Not matter what we presume.
If anything, what it shows is how little we really know about the cosmos. Not matter what we presume.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
Re: New question about the big bang & the cosmological argum
Even mathematicians have more than sufficiently proven that an infinite regression is unworkable because it violates finite mathematics principles, principles which describe the very nature of our universe.narnia4 wrote:I think apologists and philosophers have sufficiently proven that an infinite regression is illogical and therefore an eternal universe isn't the correct solution here. I don't think this shows that the universe is eternal either.
That may not necessarily be true. Even on a theoretically infinite line one can traverse between two fixed points.jlay wrote:If the universe were eternal, then how would we have ever arrived at today? You can't get to a fixed point in time, (like the moment you are reading this) if there is infinite time before.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
- jlay
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3613
- Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Re: New question about the big bang & the cosmological argum
The problem is you just don't have anyway to get to that point. Sure, you can hypothesize a infinite universe, and then make that statement. But it sure comes with a lot of complications. That means all space, time and matter have existed infinitely. Remember, you have an infinite amount of time before you. For example. If the universe were infinitely old, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics would say that the universe should be cold, dead, and lifeless. It would have already run out of energy because it has been running infinitely. No matter what fixed point you are on this line, infinity came before. So how can you get to a fixed point, if you've had infinity before that moment. It doesn't compute.That may not necessarily be true. Even on a theoretically infinite line one can traverse between two fixed points.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
Re: New question about the big bang & the cosmological argum
Lol, J I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just from a mathematical standpoint only, it could be argued as I stated. I fully agree its applicability to existence fails.jlay wrote:The problem is you just don't have anyway to get to that point. Sure, you can hypothesize a infinite universe, and then make that statement. But it sure comes with a lot of complications. That means all space, time and matter have existed infinitely. Remember, you have an infinite amount of time before you. For example. If the universe were infinitely old, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics would say that the universe should be cold, dead, and lifeless. It would have already run out of energy because it has been running infinitely. No matter what fixed point you are on this line, infinity came before. So how can you get to a fixed point, if you've had infinity before that moment. It doesn't compute.That may not necessarily be true. Even on a theoretically infinite line one can traverse between two fixed points.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
- kmr
- Valued Member
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:17 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
Re: New question about the big bang & the cosmological argum
I think what jlay is saying is that you cannot have two distinct dimensions operating separately in the same universe. For example, we cannot have 2D objects (square) in our 4D dimensions, because no mater how much you slice up a cube, in this dimension even infinitely you will never be able to make it a square. Likewise, no matter how much you multiply, even infinitely, a square will never become a cube. That's why, I think he's saying, an infinite universe (in more than four dimensions) could not have finite laws and dimensions operating separately at the same time of a lower dimension, it is mathematically impossible except in the abstract theory of an infinite line, which cannot exist.
- KMR
Dominum meum amÅ!
Dominum meum amÅ!