Alright, let's go through this.

If the universe has been around for infinite time, and energy and matter goes through expansion and contraction, what happens to that energy over time?


Eventually, it would break down.

Now has enough time passed for it to break down then?

If infinite, there's more than enough time to break down, since no matter how many years it takes to break down completely, infinite contains enough years for it to happen already.

So we know the universe has not been around for infinite years, which means it had a beginning.



Now, last part of your comments, assumption that everything with a beginning has a cause. While I can accept it is assumption based on the evidence available, why would you feel not everything with a beginning has a cause? In your city, do you have things popping up from nothing more than I do where I live? Are you saying that universes are special exceptions to this rule of having things appear from nothing? Why assume universes are the exception to the rule?

Well, fine, but then there is some other "form" of natural at the point of creation.

For some they assume a deity was that form.  For others they try and use science to find out what the was since creating what they would consider an imaginary creature (God) seems like the wrong way to go about the problem.  Not knowing how our Universe came into being exactly is not a reason to insert another unprovable and unknowable factor (God) into the equation.

Another form of natural? Wouldn't that mean something not natural?

We can agree that it could not be natural causes if natural was not around though right?

Just to be clear, you're not saying natural existed before natural existed, are you?

We don't know what exactly occurred when the Universe was created, that's all I know.

But we have some clues that are obvious such as a beginning, and that all things with a beginning have a cause. We can agree to that right?

I think we can also agree that natural causes cannot exist before natural exists too, agreeable?

I agree there is a beginning (that seems to be the most likely case for our Universe given where we are at in our knowledge)

I agree that all things that have a beginning have a cause.



This is where there is some clarity needed.  Natural causes, as we know them, would not exist before the Universe was created.

That leaves a whole host of other things that could be possible.

Okay. We have a starting point where we agree.

</quote>

Okay, what could some possibilities be?

I can't understand the science well enough to give you a clear answer.  However I'm intrigued by the ideas that there are really smart people who can give answers to this if you're interested.

Sure, you can present ideas as you like.


Right now, we can agree that the evidence shows that the universe had a beginning, that all things with a beginning have a cause, and that the natural universe as we know it could not cause itself to exist, since it did not exist at the time.

We also know that this cause was timeless, since time did not exist before time existed.

So at the moment, we should be able to agree that the cause was timeless, and not natural.


We should also be able to conclude that time, matter and space are tied to each other. If time did not exist, then neither would matter or space.

Which is how we know that nothing existed before the universe began.

Agreeable?

Yes, the most likely theory is that the Universe had a beginning.
Yes, all things that have a beginning have a cause.

Did the natural universe as it existed cause itself to begin?  The jury is out on this one I believe.  There are some fascinating things in quantum physics that may or may not be true.

Was the cause timeless?  Potentially, though not certainly.  Depends on the answer to the question previously regarding the natural universe creating itself.

Are time, matter and space tied to each other? No idea.  Not smart enough to know the ramifications of such a statement.

So we have lots of unanswered questions that I choose to continue allowing the scientific process to fill in, which you choose to allow God to fill in.

I disagree with a few points of your premise.

Specifically, you seem to be pushing that time and 'natural things' only exist within our universe. But we don't know what's outside of our universe (if anything). Our technology still doesn't let us reach the edge of the universe we're in, to say nothing about what's past that boundary.

There are some hypothesis on what exists 'outside' of our universe, but they're just that, and they're untestable with our current level of technology. I'm happy to discuss branes and strings with anyone with the patience for it. But the point is, 'we just don't know'. This doesn't mean that nothing exists outside of the universe -- or that anything exists outside! We have no way of knowing yet. We're like the ancient Greeks trying to guess what the stars are or how the sun moves across the sky. With no way to test it, everything is just guesswork and good stories.

Fortunately, science as a discipline is not one that is disproven as a whole by not knowing one part. In fact, science is built on being wrong about things and refining our understanding.

Well, deductive logic says something that did not exist wasn't around to cause itself into existence.

If it was around before it was around, that doesn't make much sense.

But I'll leave this for someone else. It looks like this isn't something you want to discuss further.


Same deductive logic as above. Time cannot be around before time is around to cause itself to exist.

The physicists can confirm this. (I suspect other scientists too)

I have been using science to answer these questions. These are principles accepted by all scientists. (Well, I suppose I should say most if you are suggesting that other scientists are saying that time was involved before time existed.)

I appreciate the responses Trust in The Lord.  At the end of the day we truly seem to differ on how we choose to fill the gaps in knowledge.

Well, I am going by the evidence. That does give me a slight advantage here.

I believe the fact that we need to have the discussion seems to indicate that both sides believe they are going by the evidence.

I disagree Doulos. I'm referring to scientific principles which are proven, not theories that are discussed that are not proven.

Time, space, and matter are dependent on each other.

Everything with a beginning has a cause.

The universe cannot be around for infinite.

Disagreeing is your right, though I also believe I am attempting to use evidence.

You're citing the laws of thermodynamics as your evidence.

The problem is, we *know* those laws break down at the point of singularity.

So, we cannot know what happens beyond a certain point, only that time and conservation of energy may not be factors anymore.

For all the help evidence provides when saying "I don't know", I agree.

I know your answer is 'God did it'. However, from a scientific perspective:
1) God isn't testable (or at least, hasn't consented to testing in a scientific manner so far).
2) The theory of God doesn't fit the facts any better than any other theory.
3) The theory of God doesn't answer any questions we might have about physics. In fact, when we've tied God to previous physical events, it actually gave us wrong answers.
4) If we discover some other first cause, say string theory, the Theory of God just adjusts to say "oh yes, well that's the tool that God used", or worse, denies the scientific theory even when the scientific theory results in actual, physical devices which prove it's correct.
5) When scientists discover a first cause and prove their theories correct through testing and observation, the people who said 'the creation of the universe is clear proof of God!' look pretty dumb, doing a great disservice to them and, worse, to God.

I think part of the problem here is we're getting science and religion mixed up. Science has some very specific requirements which religion rarely provides for:
1) The ability to test and observe your ideas
2) The ability to admit you're wrong

This doesn't mean that religion is a bad thing at all! And science does a terrible job and playing religion. My point is only that we need to recognize what falls into the realm of science, and what is in the realm of religion.

How the universe was created is in the realm of science. Why the universe was created is in the realm of religion (and, IMO, the much more interesting of the two questions).

Well, I'm stating the law of thermodynamics is showing why infinite years are not possible for the universe.


You think infinite years is possible, okay, why?

I'm no expert on cosmology, so I can't comment on what may have come before or caused the big bang. There is one thing I'd appreciate people clearing up for me, though: when you say "the universe", what exactly do you mean?

Is it:
1) The event radius of the big bang?
2) A larger realm that contains the cause of the big bang?
3) Everything that exists (including God, if he exists)?

I think the universe most people would talk about are all things that exist in known space.

Some people could mean additional ideas such as multiverses, or perhaps even things such as heaven and hell, or spiritual matters.

But I think with science, most people would limit it to your first idea, the big bang and all it encompasses.

It could include item 3, everything that exists, God included. There's nothing really wrong with 1 or 3, as both uses the same principles/theories.

Well, for one thing, the energy lost to thermodynamics is lost as heat/entropy, diffusing out into space.  It's not lost for good, it's simply unusable by any practical means.  However, the universe doesn't need to "lose" that energy, especially when the laws of time and thermodynamics cease to apply.  So yes, infinite repetitions of expansion and contraction are possible.

Okay, so we agree that the energy is not returned and used at 100% efficiency. But what isn't clear, is why you think that gradual waste is later returned 100% to restart the universe over and over infinite.


With everything going from order to chaos, you're going to need to provide more than just saying "it's okay, ignore the 2nd law, because it's all good."

I'm going to need to see some evidence before I just believe that infinite years makes sense, when science says otherwise.

I would categorize the universe as #1; basically, as far as our telescopes can see, plus a little further. It does NOT include the 'multiverse' or other branes, and so on. I don't know whether God is encompassed in the universe. I assume He is bigger than the universe, otherwise He would be bound by the rules of the universe, and so not truly omnipotent.

TitL brings up a really exciting point. Namely, that black holes and other singularities seem to break a lot of the laws of the universe. Time stops, space stretches and breaks, energy is apparently lost, and so on. I'm about to tuck into bed, but I can talk about this more tomorrow if you'd like. I do a fair bit of amateur studying of things like black holes and twists in time as it directly supports my second job.