The Universe: Eternal or no?

[sky dancer]

So Gunny, you believe in eternity? Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?

What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?

 

[Gunny]

So Gunny, you believe in eternity? Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?

What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?

The answer to your question is both simple and complex. The belief itself is based on faith. There is nothing that proves eternalism.

If the universe is infinite but not eternal, then where would it go?

 

[sky dancer]

There is nothing in the universe that is eternal. So I guess you're telling me that because of your faith you believe in eternalism, even though everything in the phenomenal world is impermanent.

 

[Gunny]

There is nothing in the universe that is eternal. So I guess you're telling me that because of your faith you believe in eternalism, even though everything in the phenomenal world is impermanent.

I did not say anything in the universe was eternal. I said the universe itself. While everything in the universe might not be eternal, there is no more proof to substantiate the claim that it isn't than there is to substantiate that it is.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, even science says the universe is eternal, matter and energy can NOT be destroyed nor created, thus it is forever here, just changing forms.

 

[XVZ]

Mr Bass is *NOT* married and no longer engages in premarital sex since he became saved 8 years ago.

No wonder you are little more than a shrieking curmudgeon. Perhaps if you got laid once in awhile you wouldn't feel the need to relieve yourself by shoving poles up your ass.

 

[Gunny]

Actually, even science says the universe is eternal, matter and energy can NOT be destroyed nor created, thus it is forever here, just changing forms.

That's what I said. I just trimmed it down.

 

[Gunny]

No wonder you are little more than a shrieking curmudgeon. Perhaps if you got laid once in awhile you wouldn't feel the need to relieve yourself by shoving poles up your ass.

 

[sky dancer]

I did not say anything in the universe was eternal. I said the universe itself. While everything in the universe might not be eternal, there is no more proof to substantiate the claim that it isn't than there is to substantiate that it is.

Actually, there is more to substantiate the universe is impermanent than eternal.

Everything observable in our world is impermanent.

This is actually a deep philosophical subject. It's silly of me to get into it on this thread.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, there is more to substantiate the universe is impermanent than eternal.

Everything observable in our world is impermanent.

This is actually a deep philosophical subject. It's silly of me to get into it on this thread.

No, a better phrase is what scientists use, it's NOT STATIC.

 

[Gunny]

Actually, there is more to substantiate the universe is impermanent than eternal.

Everything observable in our world is impermanent.

This is actually a deep philosophical subject. It's silly of me to get into it on this thread.

I can fix that.

 

[Gunny]

Actually, there is more to substantiate the universe is impermanent than eternal.

Everything observable in our world is impermanent.

This is actually a deep philosophical subject. It's silly of me to get into it on this thread.

While I can easily understand that nothing within the universe is eternal, the universe itself has to be eternal.

This is where science contradicts itself. Scientific law states you cannot get something from nothing, nothing being absolute. Yet the Big Bang theorizes just that. Something being created from nothing.

Now you are suggesting, if I understand you correctly, that it can return to nothing. That of course makes nothing something which is self-contradictory.

 

[KittenKoder]

While I can easily understand that nothing within the universe is eternal, the universe itself has to be eternal.

This is where science contradicts itself. Scientific law states you cannot get something from nothing, nothing being absolute. Yet the Big Bang theorizes just that. Something being created from nothing.

Now you are suggesting, if I understand you correctly, that it can return to nothing. That of course makes nothing something which is self-contradictory.

Actually this is why scientists need to start hiring PR more. the "Big Bang" doesn't even come close to describing what the theory is, it only describes the end of the theory. It starts out as a massive amount of particles without form then gathers, as the center grows denser the gravitational field is suppose to get stronger then once most of it is gathered into a solid mass it gets torn apart from the extreme gravity. Though you are right, that theory is one of the less logical of them all, it's sad really that people aren't looking into the lesser known ones since some of them (talking strictly scientific here) are much more logical and easily tested. The only one that is REALLY out there (again a lesser known one) is the tear theory, but that breaks every law of physics and even logic known to us and therefore was tossed out rather quickly.

 

[alan1]

The universe is too big to allow it to fail.
Too Big to Fail

 

[sky dancer]

OK. Where I'm coming from in this discussion is observing in nature that everything is impermanent.

Ourselves, as human beings, the universe and its contents and all beings therein are impermanent.

You cannot believe in a created universe without presuming the universe once did not exist. The universe is not eternal.

Even God folks think God created the universe, which means it did not exist eternally.

 

[KittenKoder]

OK. Where I'm coming from in this discussion is observing in nature that everything is impermanent.

Ourselves, as human beings, the universe and its contents and all beings therein are impermanent.

You cannot believe in a created universe without presuming the universe once did not exist. The universe is not eternal.

Even God folks think God created the universe, which means it did not exist eternally.

However in this case, both science AND religion fail big time. For something to exist then it must be created, but what created that which created it, and then what created that before that? Neither will ever answer this one epic question, and some who have pondered it too much have gone insane for obvious reasons. What created the creator?

 

[Gunny]

Actually this is why scientists need to start hiring PR more. the "Big Bang" doesn't even come close to describing what the theory is, it only describes the end of the theory. It starts out as a massive amount of particles without form then gathers, as the center grows denser the gravitational field is suppose to get stronger then once most of it is gathered into a solid mass it gets torn apart from the extreme gravity. Though you are right, that theory is one of the less logical of them all, it's sad really that people aren't looking into the lesser known ones since some of them (talking strictly scientific here) are much more logical and easily tested. The only one that is REALLY out there (again a lesser known one) is the tear theory, but that breaks every law of physics and even logic known to us and therefore was tossed out rather quickly.

The problem with theories is they are theories. Supposedly logical conclusions on man's part that are limited by man's intellect. Where science explains actual fact in regard to Man and our world and the observable universe I don't have much argument.

It is when science steps outside of its own rules and tries to explain what it cannot that I start asking questions. IMO, the origin of the universe and life on Earth are two of those attempts.

It's my opinion that science does itself a disservice by trying to disprove religion by creating its own. Then people do it a further disservice by stating it as absolute and provable fact because it suits their agenda.

 

[Gunny]

OK. Where I'm coming from in this discussion is observing in nature that everything is impermanent.

Ourselves, as human beings, the universe and its contents and all beings therein are impermanent.

You cannot believe in a created universe without presuming the universe once did not exist. The universe is not eternal.

Even God folks think God created the universe, which means it did not exist eternally.

I understand what you are saying. Your last sentence though ... which "God folk?" My take on it is he created what is within the universe.

 

[William Joyce]

I remember learning in physics in college that the sun will run out of nuclear fuel in a few billions years. The Earth will be incinerated. So when I slack off on mowing the lawn and the wife complains, I just say, "but honey..."

 

[sky dancer]

No, a better phrase is what scientists use, it's NOT STATIC.

That's a better phrase for a scientist, I'm talking philosophy.