History of the Universe and Earth

[BAndrew]

Although my fields of study don't really involve the sciences, i don't see what you present as difficult to respond to or explain. All truth is logical, even though all things logical may not be true, so at least we could leave out absurdities like nothing --> something. Then again, i also know some people would argue that logic or the "laws of nature" break down or simply do not exist (perhaps to go on to say that the "laws of nature" were created shortly after the start of the big bang) at the "beginning of time." But logic would tell us that too is an absurdity. So we can derive from this examination that nothing cannot create something, and that some form of recipe (with "ingredients"!) or "laws of nature" had to exist, for if they didn't, nothing would have resulted from the big bang event, for there would be no event to begin with.


So if such a contraction cannot occur naturally, may require an infinite amount of energy, the "laws" observable today applied back then too, i would find that a conscious entity who's omnipotent (i.e. greater than the universe) to be a suitable and logical explanation for any "big bang" event. Yes, this allows for things other than this conscious entity to be eternal in their nature; however(!), this "eternal" characteristic could only be demanded for this conscious entity (and therefore not demanded for the other things), for this conscious entity has to be able to pre-date everything else, or else infinite regressions are met. Consider that, if this conscious entity did not exist and the other things pre-dated the big bang event therefore implying that the big bang event occurred naturally, that an infinite regression would be necessarily met. This is because of the assumption that the same laws observable today pre-date the big bang. Therefore, if the big bang event occurred naturally, it would only be in due time that the universe will contract and form another big bang event, and another, and another, ad infinitum.

I think I lost you. Who told you the universe was created in the first place? Why are you so racist? What's wrong with the universe being eternal? If such an entity could exist and be eternal why not simply say that the Universe existed forever (if Big Bang is correct --> Infinity of Big Bangs - Big Crunches, otherwise --> it just exists forever)? I don't see the need for a creator. Also how can a creator exist before the Big Bang when there is no before the Big Bang? It doesn't make any sense. So I suppose he lives somewhere (?) else. Now that's NOT in spacetime ( can't be because it fails the previous argument), it's not a place or any given moment in time. But it's something. Again there is a need for another creator. This leads to a never ending hierarchy*.

*Which if I understood correctly is the thing you tried to avoid? Ooops!


Note: The Big Bang doesn't necessarily imply the creation of the universe.
Also the entire question "who/what made the universe?" doesn't make any sense. There was no time for anything or anyone to create the universe in the first place.

---

The brain is a three pound mass you can hold in your hand that can conceive of a universe a hundred-billion light years across.

I find this quote interesting. In my opinion, while this seems impressive, it actually isn't. I would say that what the brain is good at is creating models. From sensory perception the brain realizes some very basic axioms: for example, that something has distance, something is solid, something has mass, etc. As we progress through life we create abstract models that are based on these axioms, such as math, physics, etc. And our understanding of the size of the universe is just part of the model our brain has created to comprehend distance.

@Chronofrog

It's still impressive...