Jump to content

Expanding universe


SomeGuy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm curious for those of you who are now atheist, what is your thoughts on the expanding universe and theories assuming it universe has a beginning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as an atheist and someone not involved in the relevant fields, I don't know enough to hold a strong opinion.  It's interesting to think about, but otherwise has no bearing on my life.

 

As a Christian, what are your thoughts regarding whether the Yuan dynasty is better classified as Chinese or Mongolian?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
11 hours ago, SomeGuy said:

I'm curious for those of you who are now atheist, what is your thoughts on the expanding universe and theories assuming it universe has a beginning?

 

This thread is very specific to your questions. Try reading through and see if your questions are answered: 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Joshpantera, it's an interesting read. I'm thru part three but it'll take a bit to digest. The "Cosmological Constant" being positive throwing a curve ball in the original calculations is really interesting but it'll take me a bit to get even a rough handle on what that means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2021 at 4:53 PM, SomeGuy said:

I'm curious for those of you who are now atheist, what is your thoughts on the expanding universe and theories assuming it universe has a beginning?

 

According to the Big Bang model (BB) the universe via space is expanding. As a cosmologist, in my own model the universe is not expanding, but it had a beginning like the BB proposal, but that beginning was a great many times older than the present BB model.

 

Concerning the word "assuming," cosmological models assume nothing; they may propose wrong theory but can explain reasons for their proposals without assumptions.

 

As a Christian I expect you wish to explain something to me or someone concerning your own related beliefs . As an atheist, long ago I sold my immortal soul for a six pack of beer so I no longer have a soul that can be saved  🐸

 

Welcome to our X-Ch forum SG, hope you like it here and stay for awhile.

 

best wishes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 3/29/2021 at 12:53 PM, SomeGuy said:

I'm curious for those of you who are now atheist, what is your thoughts on the expanding universe and theories assuming it universe has a beginning?

 

Hi, welcome to Ex-C

 

Like Krowb I don't know enough about the subject to hold my own informed opinion. I also find the question, though interesting, irrelevant to everyday life. Finding out that we are in a static universe would not alter my day to day life. I'd be interested, read up on the new discovery, but otherwise continue as usual.

 

My personal belief, and this is not rooted in any evidence, though has some logical underpinnings that probably exist because of lack of knowledge, is that matter and energy has always existed in some form. Thus there never was a universe from nothing. So when a religious person says that I believe that the universe came from nothing they are emphatically wrong. I've never experienced nothing, never seen it demonstrated, and am not at all convinced it's even possible. 

 

The difference between the religious person and I is that I take what we know exists - i.e. our cosmos, and simply assume it has existed in some form forever, the religious person has to insert an agent into the question and assume that agent has existed forever. The religious solution I find has far more logical issues than mine.

 

Now as for our local universe. I accept the current theory that the universe rapidly expanded from some state some 13.8 billion years ago. What existed before that I have no idea, and some folk think talking about 'existing' before the big bang is incoherent since time came into being when the universe did so you can't have existence which relies on time, to occur before time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SomeGuy said:

Thanks Joshpantera, it's an interesting read. I'm thru part three but it'll take a bit to digest. The "Cosmological Constant" being positive throwing a curve ball in the original calculations is really interesting but it'll take me a bit to get even a rough handle on what that means. 

 

A positive cosmological constant means there would be an ongoing negative outward pressure in space which they assert would be the cause of the accelerated expansion of the universe, which they call dark energy. This is related to the Inflation hypothesis which is a relativity new addendum to the Big Bang model.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Moderator
On 3/30/2021 at 12:11 AM, SomeGuy said:

Thanks Joshpantera, it's an interesting read. I'm thru part three but it'll take a bit to digest. The "Cosmological Constant" being positive throwing a curve ball in the original calculations is really interesting but it'll take me a bit to get even a rough handle on what that means. 

 

Sorry I missed this response. 

 

What it means is that the singularity theory was shown incorrect because it predicts a zero or negative cosmological constant. Without that particular singularity it changes the way in which the BBT is viewed. Now the bigger problem is that the singularity theory that William Lane Craig uses to make his arguments for conflating the BBT with Genesis, rests on a foundation of the Penrose singularity theory being true.

 

What's worse yet, is that the singularity theory had already been falsified PRIOR to WLC taking up his apologetic arguments: 

 

Singularity theory > SINGULARITY THEORY FALSIFIED > WLC introducing apologetic arguments based on the ST being true > All discussion today

 

In a nut shell it means that WLC or anyone else looking for a fixed beginning of the universe doesn't have one through mainstream science. Although the BBT looks like it can be used with Genesis, it actually doesn't work out at all. Not just for this reason, but myriad others continuing past the original claim of a fixed beginning. But even if we do call anything the beginning of the universe, it can't be taken literally anyways. Because the source material involved in any beginning we could possibly focus in on had to have pre-existed whatever point we choose to focus in on. 

 

If the singularity were true, then further problems would enter the situation of claiming that it literally was the beginning: 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Sorry I missed this response. 

 

What it means is that the singularity theory was shown incorrect because it predicts a zero or negative cosmological constant. Without that particular singularity it changes the way in which the BBT is viewed. Now the bigger problem is that the singularity theory that William Lane Craig uses to make his arguments for conflating the BBT with Genesis, rests on a foundation of the Penrose singularity theory being true.................................................

 

 

 

Hey Josh,  Very good video.   If you or someone else wants simple, but better science explanations to unanswered questions, I can give them here, or in the science vs. religion forum. :)   Just ask  any question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.