- #1
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
The impossibility of a begin of time
One of the contemporary and most popular beliefs both amongst theists and scientists is the belief that the universe had a begin in time.
This belief has grown due to the fact that more and more evidence is provided for the theory of the Big Bang, a theory which in itself does not state other then that - since we now can witness that far away galaxies are 'receding' from us with increasing speeds (Hubble redshift-distance relation) that the universe was in the far past smaller, denser and hotter.
In this discussion, the theoretical and observational evidence for the Big Bang is assumed to be correct, and is not of relevance to the discussion. It is hold that the possibility of a begin of time or what was 'before' the Big Bang, and hypothesis based on this, are not part of the Big Bang theory itself, but are part of pre-Big Bang cosmology (like for example the Ekpyrotic model of colliding branes in string cosmology, and the eternal / open / chaotic inflation model)
So we will focus this discussion entirely on only one aspect of the Big Bang, namely the hypothese and popular belief that the Big Bang denotes or came out of the "begin of time", and which therefore means that there was no before.
But this topic as such has been long known to scientists and philosophers to be a topic of interest.
It has been stated in the past that it would be inconceivable that the now would have been formed by an infinite causal events lined up to each other. A contemporary argument for this is known as the Kalam Cosmological argument. But history shows that this argument has been used over and over again, as for example by Leibnitz and Kant.
And thirdly there is the argument from Thermodynamics, in which the Second law of thermodynamics is applied on the universe as a whole, and which would mean that the universe would already have used it's amount of usable energy, which as we can see happens not to be the case, and therefore it has to be assumed that the universe must have had a definite begin in time.
So, to be put in brief, the three major arguments for a begin in time are:
In the following posts I will discuss all three arguments, and provide sufficient counter arguments against these ideas, in defense of the position hold by materialist, that there can not have been a begin of time.
[TO BE CONTINUED]
One of the contemporary and most popular beliefs both amongst theists and scientists is the belief that the universe had a begin in time.
This belief has grown due to the fact that more and more evidence is provided for the theory of the Big Bang, a theory which in itself does not state other then that - since we now can witness that far away galaxies are 'receding' from us with increasing speeds (Hubble redshift-distance relation) that the universe was in the far past smaller, denser and hotter.
In this discussion, the theoretical and observational evidence for the Big Bang is assumed to be correct, and is not of relevance to the discussion. It is hold that the possibility of a begin of time or what was 'before' the Big Bang, and hypothesis based on this, are not part of the Big Bang theory itself, but are part of pre-Big Bang cosmology (like for example the Ekpyrotic model of colliding branes in string cosmology, and the eternal / open / chaotic inflation model)
So we will focus this discussion entirely on only one aspect of the Big Bang, namely the hypothese and popular belief that the Big Bang denotes or came out of the "begin of time", and which therefore means that there was no before.
But this topic as such has been long known to scientists and philosophers to be a topic of interest.
It has been stated in the past that it would be inconceivable that the now would have been formed by an infinite causal events lined up to each other. A contemporary argument for this is known as the Kalam Cosmological argument. But history shows that this argument has been used over and over again, as for example by Leibnitz and Kant.
And thirdly there is the argument from Thermodynamics, in which the Second law of thermodynamics is applied on the universe as a whole, and which would mean that the universe would already have used it's amount of usable energy, which as we can see happens not to be the case, and therefore it has to be assumed that the universe must have had a definite begin in time.
So, to be put in brief, the three major arguments for a begin in time are:
[1] A postulate or hypothese in which the Big Bang denotes the begin of time.
[2] The impossibility of an actual infinite, and therefore the need of a definite begin of time.
[3] The argument from the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the universe is a closed system, and which means that it's amount of usable energy must decrease, and hence a begin in time is required.
In the following posts I will discuss all three arguments, and provide sufficient counter arguments against these ideas, in defense of the position hold by materialist, that there can not have been a begin of time.
[TO BE CONTINUED]