how can we best explain our existence ?

[lightgigantic]

lg,

Perhaps the analogy breaks down since fire comes before smoke is possible. The analogy creates a paradox since smoke must come after the fire so both cannot be eternal, i.e. there is a necessary temporal element making the entities slightly out of phase because of the cause and effect relationship. But this raises the concept of an eternal entity being contingent/dependent on another eternal entity: I believe the definition of eternal makes such a relationship nonsensical.

I used the fire example, even though we don't have experience of eternal fires, since the potencies of it are quite clear and distinct

Either one is truly dependent on the other, i.e. caused by it and must therefore have existed for a shorter time and therefore cannot be eternal (it had a beginning), or both are independently eternal and therefore there is no contingency.

This doesn't make sense.
If an eternal object exhibits a (constant) potency, how would that potency come into effect at a later point?

In which case if the universe is eternal it cannot be contingent on anything, whether eternal or not.

Are you arguing that the universe doesn't exhibit any (constant) qualities, potencies or characteristics?

If you are, this is also a nonsensical platform to argue from, since there would be absolutely no way that one could begin to categorize the universe as eternal.

[Pit]

pit,

Yes it does. If there was a point where nothing existed then there would have been nothing to provide a cause and we couldn't be here.

Therefore it necessarily follows that something has ALWAYS existed.

Yes. Sorry I was unclear, I meant that something must come from something, but this does not mean that the Steady-state theory is true. The big bang has the "Something" from which the universe came.

[Cris]

lg,

“
Either one is truly dependent on the other, i.e. caused by it and must therefore have existed for a shorter time and therefore cannot be eternal (it had a beginning), or both are independently eternal and therefore there is no contingency.
”
This doesn't make sense.
If an eternal object exhibits a (constant) potency, how would that potency come into effect at a later point?

Because in this case smoke cannot be an eternal entity, it is the product of fire and is transient, but more importantly it experiences a necessary time lag requiring the fire to create it, i.e. it had/has beginning(s) and hence cannot by definition be eternal.

“
In which case if the universe is eternal it cannot be contingent on anything, whether eternal or not.
”
Are you arguing that the universe doesn't exhibit any (constant) qualities, potencies or characteristics?

If you are, this is also a nonsensical platform to argue from, since there would be absolutely no way that one could begin to categorize the universe as eternal.

I did not imply anything like that.

I think the issue is simple. If something is eternal it cannot be dependent or contingent on anything else. ANY dependency or contingent condition necessarily implies a beginning and hence rules out its status of eternal. Anything that can be classed as eternal must be independent and self-sustaining, otherwise it becomes simply a by-product of another entity.

Or put another way any dependent/contingent condition requires at least a moment of time to propagate, i.e. there is a start point which excludes the classification of eternal.

If one were to argue that the two entities existed in parallel/simultaneously and are both eternal then that must necessarily rule out any dependencies between them. i.e. if the existence of "B" is dependent on the existence of "A" then by necessity "A" must precede "B", in which case "B" cannot be eternal (it came later - had a beginning).

So if the universe is eternal then it must be self-sustaining and cannot be contingent/dependent on anything else.

[Jan Ardena]

how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.

1, & 3.

The matter and energy that make up the universe is eternal
An intelligent source moulded the universe and everything in it from
the material energy.

jan.

[Pit]

lg,

Because in this case smoke cannot be an eternal entity, it is the product of fire and is transient, but more importantly it experiences a necessary time lag requiring the fire to create it, i.e. it had/has beginning(s) and hence cannot by definition be eternal.
I think the issue is simple. If something is eternal it cannot be dependent or contingent on anything else. ANY dependency or contingent condition necessarily implies a beginning and hence rules out its status of eternal. Anything that can be classed as eternal must be independent and self-sustaining, otherwise it becomes simply a by-product of another entity.

Or put another way any dependent/contingent condition requires at least a moment of time to propagate, i.e. there is a start point which excludes the classification of eternal.

If one were to argue that the two entities existed in parallel/simultaneously and are both eternal then that must necessarily rule out any dependencies between them. i.e. if the existence of "B" is dependent on the existence of "A" then by necessity "A" must precede "B", in which case "B" cannot be eternal (it came later - had a beginning).

So if the universe is eternal then it must be self-sustaining and cannot be contingent/dependent on anything else.

Yeah. But another point: If the smoke comes from fire, and the smoke came after the fire, and the smoke is not eternal, than neither is the fire; i.e. eternal is infinite in age, and the fire is "eternal" but the smoke is, say, a minute less old than the smoke, but is not eternal. Since infinity-1 = infinity, the fire must also be finite in age.
I still, however, believe in God and the big bang.

[sifreak21]

how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.

#1 for me untill someone can show me a wall of the universe all we can do is assume that it goes on forever and ever.. it has been around forever and will be around for eternity.. that being said if we infact were a freak accident there have been more freak accidents that created intelligent life

[Dywyddyr]

it has been around forever

So you don't believe in the Big Bang?

and will be around for eternity

Another guess?

[spidergoat]

So you don't believe in the Big Bang?

They are not incompatable concepts.

[Pit]

#1 for me untill someone can show me a wall of the universe all we can do is assume that it goes on forever and ever..

Not really most scientists believe that the universe is an object with 4 spacial dimensions. So, if you start in a rocket ship on earth, and set out in any direction forever, you would eventually come back to earth. (For comparison, imagine a square moving around on a sphere)

it has been around forever and will be around for eternity..

What makes you think that? Scientist have collected information about the background radiation of the universe and have followed it back to it's source: the big bang.

[spidergoat]

I guess I will have to explain what I'l referring to. Here is a diagram. The concept that the universe is both eternal and had a local beginning about 14 billion years ago is not contradicted by physics.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/...9265cf95_b.jpg

[Dywyddyr]

The point where the two meet would be t = 0, no?
I.e. time started at that point. Hence not eternal.

[spidergoat]

It's eternal from the point of view of an observer in either universe. Click on the diagram to see Stenger's powerpoint presentation on the topic.

[sifreak21]

So you don't believe in the Big Bang?


Another guess?

no dont necessarily believe in the big bang.

if the univerese is eternal then it will never have a end it will always be here renewing solarsystems ect.

if i try to think if i keep moving in one direction and i never will ever find an end gives me a headach its WAY to big for me to comprehend

so yes to answer your question it is a guess.. as is everything to do with the creation of the universe

[sifreak21]

Not really most scientists believe that the universe is an object with 4 spacial dimensions. So, if you start in a rocket ship on earth, and set out in any direction forever, you would eventually come back to earth. (For comparison, imagine a square moving around on a sphere)

What makes you think that? Scientist have collected information about the background radiation of the universe and have followed it back to it's source: the big bang.

aww ok i understand that


well if the universe has always been here there was no start it was just here now solar systems or galaxies are different they had a begining but no one knows .

scientists have taken a guess on the big bang theory really nothing more than a shot in the dark

[Dywyddyr]

no dont necessarily believe in the big bang.

So what's your explanation for the evidence we have for the Big Bang?

so yes to answer your question it is a guess.. as is everything to do with the creation of the universe

See above.
You're claiming that the evidence we have is nothing more than a guess?

[sifreak21]

on another note dwy. reason i dont necessarily believe in the big bang is if that is thru were did all that matter come from before the big bang? the size of that "ball" would be in comprehendably big.

on a side note scientist have found a white dwarf star made out of diamond its one billion trillion trillion carats its gonna be my wifes ring if/when ever that day comes

[sifreak21]

So what's your explanation for the evidence we have for the Big Bang??

well your going to ask me for my souces and i wont beable to give you any as this is my opinion nothing more.. the universe is soo big and everything in the universe is moving one way or another the evidence we have for the big bang at the moment is everything seems to be moving away from us but on 2 1 axis and closer to us on the other 2.. correct me if im wrong but if that was true that would mean the big bang centered on us which i dont think is true.

See above.
You're claiming that the evidence we have is nothing more than a guess?

thats what im saying yes. we dont know if our galaxy is the universe zoom in to 1 group of red blue and green pixils on your computer 1 of thoes colors is what we know or have explored. hell we dont even have but 5% of our oceans uncovered so if we dont even know all of the animals on our extremely small planet in the grand scope of things i dont have that much faith that scientist can tell us how everything in exsistance on this world and off was created

[spidergoat]

Everything is expanding, this does not imply that the Earth is at the center.

[sifreak21]

Everything is expanding, this does not imply that the Earth is at the center.

if everything is expanding and as the physics of an explosion
on one side of the earth should be expanding faster than another

[spidergoat]

It is expanding uniformly, and accelerating. It's not like a bomb, where the initial force is the only force.