An unanswerable question for both atheists and Abrahamics

[shian]

in my life

when i start learn Bharat scripture (not expert), i find many amazing knowledge

for example is Veda,

Veda about music
Veda about mathematic
Veda about medicine
about all phenomena in universe
etc

even the story (many people call myth) about deitys (puranas) have deep knowledge

so i feel grateful in this life can learn and practice Bharat wisdom

[JaiMaaDurga]

Namaste,

While I find cosmogeny, theoretical physics, and other related fields extremely fascinating and well worth pursuing, I must admit that the idea of explaining to someone else why Hoyle's "steady-state model" was wrong, or what a Calabi-Yau manifold is (or any of a dozen other things, ranging from the Casimir effect to P-branes), is daunting, to say the least... all I can offer is that for me, devotion to Devi has never meant rejection of scientific advancement, etc.

If anything, the more I learn, the more devout I become

JAI MATA DI

[anirvan]

What is Time exactly? Isn"t a relative dimension used to point between CHANGES ?If there is no changes does time actually exist?Also it has to be observed,otherwise who else will point that there was a beginning and now its the end?

Let assume that,before human evolved,God was the observer in consciousness state.

According to vedic philosophy, ANITYA(ever changing-non-permanent) brings the concept of TIME.

So does the Scientific communities believe that the BB everything was dormant? How moronic it is to think that a SINGULARITY has created the infinite? If it was tiny singularity,there was nothing in existence?

Kindly try to imagine INFINITE.......!!!!!!!!!! Infinite means everything is infinite,the universes,M-universe,its creation and the number of the so called BB..........SHOULD BE INFINITE!!!

So how come the Time,cause-effect IS invalid before BB ???

Thats why Vedas has warned human.....Through Intelligence,mind,debate....truth can"t be understood.

Brahman has 4 parts.3 parts are SATYA,NITYA & AMRITA...which is Non-Changing.....eternal.The 4th part is where the changes happens,creation,destruction, Bigbang,TIME,SPACE,CAUSE-EFFECT.

bUT Again it has to be remembered that--This ever changing part is also ETERNAL

[wundermonk]

@MahaHrada

I think I need to make a distinction. For sake of clarity, I am going to call the conventional consensus amongst scientists regarding physics cosmogony BBTTM.

Ok, so, BBTTM is what you have attempted to defend.

Science knows that there cannot be any cause for the singularity in the BB Theory.

BBTTM is uncaused. So far, so good.

That is self evident since singularity exist per definition prior to time.

Well, there we go again, if something is uncaused, it is beginningless. It is eternal. It couldnt have happened a "finite" time ago. So, it is not self-evident at all.

Also, nothing can exist "prior" to time. That statement is self-refuting.

Wheter there are non causal relationships between one primal singularity/BB and other states of the universe there is ongoing research, the M-theory is a very interesting proposal that may solve some riddles of the BB theory or even disprove the primal singularity alltogether in favor of a cyclical multidimensional theory that is dispensing with the idea of a beginning, or moment of creation.

So, BBTTM is but ONE of the many other possible theories out there. An eternal series of ...Big Bang...Big Crunch...Big Bang...Big Crunch...ad infinitum is not disproven, yes? Note, when I use the term "Big Bang" in the eternal series it is not BBTTM. The series is to be seen as "...expansion...contraction...expansion...contraction.."

[Kismet]

If all necessary and sufficient [N & S] conditions for creation were always available, why didnt creation happen 5 minutes [or 10 minutes or 100 billion years] earlier than when it actually did?

Good to see you again, monk.

I fail to see how this question specifically foils the Abrahamists/Atheists position. If there is no-time, and all of a sudden there is time, well, problems notwithstanding as to exactly how this "happened", time simply "instantiated" itself. If time and motion are a unity, then first there was stillness and then there was activity.

Of course, the issue with a Creator God is: how could he ever will to create in the first place, apart from time? This is something I have pondered in the past: the will, if it is to be a will, must have time to enact itself, or else it is not a true will. But here I have all of a sudden gone and conflated my original point with another one. Lost it. So tenebrous and fragile are these thoughts.

[wundermonk]

Good to see you again, monk.

I fail to see how this question specifically foils the Abrahamists/Atheists position. If there is no-time, and all of a sudden there is time, well, problems notwithstanding as to exactly how this "happened", time simply "instantiated" itself. If time and motion are a unity, then first there was stillness and then there was activity.

Hi K:

The point is simple. If time had a beginning, the burden of proof is on the person claiming this to argue coherently what this means. If it is problematic to explain how this happened, then, from a philosophical POV, the default position is that it never happened. i.e. time is uncreated.

Note the part of your quote that I have emphasized: Concepts like "first" and "then" are themselves in time. For the ontological existence of something, anything, it requires to be within the twin fabric of time-space.

Of course, the issue with a Creator God is: how could he ever will to create in the first place, apart from time? This is something I have pondered in the past: the will, if it is to be a will, must have time to enact itself, or else it is not a true will. But here I have all of a sudden gone and conflated my original point with another one. Lost it. So tenebrous and fragile are these thoughts.

As to the Abrahamic argument, folks like William Lane Craig, et al. argue that God was "timeless" prior to creation. Then, he "changed", when he created everything including time.

Now, the problem is, every "change" itself requires time. So, a "change" that caused time is self-refuting.

[Kismet]

Concepts like "first" and "then" are themselves in time. For the ontological existence of something, anything, it requires to be within the twin fabric of time-space.

I can well imagine a setting in which time all of a sudden "started" though. How about this scenario. From all eternity a painting existed showing a waitress filling a guy's coffee cup. Then, after all that "time", the painting started moving. In terms of motion there was a transition: 1st, Stasis, 2nd, Movement. Now, this is an imperfect example as it doesn't articulate perfectly what timelessness might entirely mean - only lack of motion. But as I said, if time and motion are a unity, then exploring the ramification of the latter's opposite should shed at least some light on the former.

But hey, what do I know?

[Mana]

Namaste all,

What a fascinating thread; I feel that it would be of benefit at this time to point out the importance of the understanding of the relative nature of all, whilst meditating upon these concepts.

Just as an electron can not be observed with out affecting it (you have to probe it to see it) this its self creates an effect upon it. So as we observe the world and universe about us we affect it and it affects us.

The nature of space and time are so inextricably inter connected that it can be difficult to perceive. The notion that the more we magnify a portion of the sky the further back in time we are seeing exemplifies this.

We tend to perceive time in a very linear fashion, this helps us to compete with all aspects of life on a day to day level, this perception through the lens of our minds is greatly effected even constructed by that mind. I don't think I need to reiterate this conundrum here.

Now let us consider the big band in relativistic terms. The further back in time we go, the denser and hotter becomes the universe. As gases heat up the particles move faster. From relativity we know that as the perspective of the particle accelerates, the speed at which energy (light) travels does not change, it is time that slows down to accommodate. As the pressure heat and density rises; time slows.

Now let us suppose that time has slowed to a near stop at a millisecond before the big bang. Can we not suppose that due to the nature of time the big bang never actually happened, that it is infarct a limit, an exponential slowing of time giving only the appearance of a singularity, in a fractal field, the singularity being a multidimensional coordinate system from within which this exponential slowing of time occurs.

At this current time given the curious results from the LHC experiment and the unexplained nature of the 80% dark matter (existing only to flesh out the maths) can we not safely assume that the Western model of the big bang is it best fragile. Given the Relative nature of conciousness within the experiment, is not the assumption that its nature is a constant; as great an error as assuming that Δt is negatable.

Interesting times...

praNAma

mana

[MahaHrada]

Also, nothing can exist "prior" to time. That statement is self-refuting.

Of course something can exist "prior to" or without time and causality, in the BBT model, the singularity is a state of the universe that is existing, just 3d time or space is non existing, singularity is something, a super compact state of matter.

[nitinsharma]

Dear,dear,I know others have tried to make this point(clearly without emphasizing it enough),so here goes:

TIME IS NOT LINEAR.Think of it like "ring-shaped".Hence it has no beginning/ending=eternal.Basically BB sucks.

Yeah,I'm preparing for my exams.