@Doom

So, why couldn't there just be one universe that's always existed? If you were to look backwards, you'd see it accelerating slower and slower, but it would never actually stop. No Big Bang, it just slows forever.

@abge

Well this leads to some really confusing philosophical stuff. If you had a straight line of infinite time (unlike the circular time of cyclic universe theory), time would be forced to go both backwards and forwards in time at the same time, creating the past and the future at the same exact time. This is actually theoretically possible, it just makes a bit less sense to me. With that said, if it was proven correct, I would certainly change my view.

@doom

"A determined universe that has a beginning starts at a single point. Now what made that point go in whatever direction it went in? It was either a god, or it was simply random. "

You are wrong there is a third most rational and logical option. Instead for claiming a god or another unproovebale theory. why don´t you just say we don´t have the knowledge of the beginning we just figured out some "believes" and trying to research much as possible?
Your theory can´t even be prooven...just like gods existence

"Well that's generally what philosophy tries to achieve. Objective rationalist ideas. "

No, philosophy is about the good the beautiful and the true. Objective rationalist ideas is the ambition of modern science.
And you forget to name the philosophy i asked you to.

@Doom,

Could you elaborate a bit more on the forward/backward thing.

To what degree would it need to be proven. Nothing up to this point has been proven enough for you. What exactly would "proof" consist of?

"If you were to look backwards, you'd see it accelerating slower and slower, but it would never actually stop"
- Where is the evidence for this? Please link it.

Kreator of Doom - Yes, Aquinas is good. A bit hard to read at times, but he is quite specific.

abgemacht - That was a good article. I was not familiar with Bell, though, so to actually comment on that I would have to read a bit more.

@Miro

By definition, if you are a determinist, every event must have a cause, and thus every cause must also have a cause. Unless you believe in the concept that what happened after and what happened before the big bang are developing at the same exact time, you have yourself a quandry that cannot be explained through physics.

Also, I could just answer by saying rationalism, which is by it's very definition, based on rational thought.

@abgemacht - I'm just commenting on these two theories as I understand them. I actually am a Lutheran and believe that God's finger set off the big bang and He is the Alpha and Omega who has always been and always will be. So if I were to argue these things to be true, I would be handicapped in that I don't believe them. And you are correct that the expansion, if plotted backwards may approach zero velovity and a center point but never reach either, therefore the universe *could* be of an infinite age already and always has existed sans a beginning.

@Miro

There is no evidence at all. That is my point. If you aren't going to rely on empirical evidence as the foundation of your beliefs, then you can make up anything you want.

@nola

yes, it is a very tricky subject and I don't claim to know everything about it. To me, though, it seems much more solid that the other options being discussed.

@Draug

That seems like a perfectly reasonable belief, imho. It doesn't contradict anything we observe and doesn't try to create convoluted answers to hide any flaws.

If you don't mind me asking, do you believe that God plays a role in day-to-day life, or merely started the process?

@Abge

Well the concept goes like this. The big bang started our world, so we would be the future of the big bang. If you believe in determinism, every event has to have a cause, including the big bang. Thus, time could theoretically go backwards and forwards to develop both the effects of causes in the future of the big bang, and the causes of the effects that led up to the big bang. Both the time before and after the big bang would be developing at the same time, and I actually believe this. However, I think that ultimately this would make a lot more sense in a circular model of time.

Rationalisation and theorization only required logical, well reasoned thought, not evidence. Theories are proofs. They are concepts that *could* be right but also *could* be wrong. There is nothing to say that the universe didn't slow to an infinitesimal crawl as it became infinitesimally closer to the point of the singularity. And, in fact, the evidence that the universe's expansion is accelerating is evidence that this *could* (not is, just could) be true. In other words, it is one of many possibilities to explain how the universe is infinite in time.

@doom

"By definition, if you are a determinist, every event must have a cause, and thus every cause must also have a cause. "

Yes that´s right, but you just don´t know the cause of what happens excactly at the big bang. No one does doom! I don´t understand why you are so focused of on your believes? It happens billions of years ago, and scientists have the almost impossible challenge to reconstruct it.

@Doom

I'm saying there could be no Big Bang. No beginning. If you looked back, every effect would have a cause no matter how far back you went. How is this less likely (if we're ignoring physics) than a cyclic universe.

@Miro

Because it interests me. :-)

@Abge

Ohhhh. That is a good point, but there would need to be a start point at which to go backwards and forwards in time, and where would that be?

"There is no evidence at all. That is my point. If you aren't going to rely on empirical evidence as the foundation of your beliefs, then you can make up anything you want. "

+1

@Doom

There would be no such point. Rather, every point would be that point if it was possible.

You would never actually be able to look backwards to see that it happened, but that doesn't mean it didn't. An infinite straight line just seems simpler than a circle with two huge explosions, no?

"Because it interests me. :-) "

Ok, but you you don´t argue in logical and rational ways, you just preach.

@Abge

Well that makes sense too. So here is where I do resort to physics in the end to settle the debate. Once you have several options that could work, you have to use mathematics and physics to cut out the other options. So what do you think about the 3 possibilities (although really 2, because the forwards and backwards in time thing works best with the cyclical universe) we came up with, physics-wise?

@Miro

How so?

@abgemacht - I believe He can touch people's "hearts" so they will want to serve his will, but I do not believe he causes floods and natural disasters or punishes the wicked here on earth with diseases. And I don't believe Pat Robertson or the Pope have a direct phone line to him. So, yes He can and does have an effect on our every day lives by influencing other's to provide us what we truly need (even if what we need is patience and understanding).

I'm reminded of a joke about a guy in a flood...

The flood starts and he is standing on his porch swing when a guy comes buy in a canoe and offers to help him out of the flooding. He says "No thanks, God will save me."

The water gets higher and he is on the second floor when a cop in a motor boat tries to get him to hop in and he says "No thanks, God will save me."

Finally, he is on his roof and a helicopter drops him a line but he refuses saying "No thanks, God will save me."

When he drowns and comes before God, he says "Why didn't you save me?" God says, "What do you mean? I sent a canoe, a motorboat, and a helicopter!"

@Abge

Well then again, the problem comes up that it requires time to go in both directions, and where do you set the point at which it splits?

Time doesn't exist, per se. Time is a means of measuring change via entropy. As such, it can only flow in one direction.

Sorry to spam, but you guys keep bumping down the Live Games thread. Might as well post here.

gameID=34146

@Draugnar

Why is that? Couldn't it measure it the other way at the same time?

"How so? "

Because you hang on your theory, although there is no evidence at all. That´s a believe and preaching is the verb for proclaiming a believe :-)

@Miro

But there is philosophical evidence, and that is what I care about.

@Miro

And also, please spell belief properly. :-P