The Alpha and Omega-God has no beginning and no end /as opposed to the universe having no beginning and no end ?

by smiddy 19 Replies latest jw friends

  • smiddy

    I would like some more enlightened beings than me to thrash this out.

    To start the ball rolling with my small intellect

    I was always taught from my JW days that nothing came from nothing,and I accepted that.

    All of creation had a start,and reproduced itself according to it`s kind according to genesis

    And of course we now know their are life forms that are a-sexual that reproduce

    And my reluctance to entertain the idea of where did God come from,even at the q`s from my son ( my answer then was their are just things we dont ,no will never know about) stop wasting your time with things you will never know about

    But isn`t it a valid question?

    Why isn`t it a valid question that matter has always existed?,matter has no beginning or end?

    Energy has always existed ,has no beginning or end?

    Why would we beleive" a God"" one God" has no beginning and no end ?

    And if you do accept God has always existed,why stop at one? Why not two/? or three or whatever?

    It makes just as much sense to say that the universe has always existed,has no beginning and no end ,as to say God has always existed.

    The only true evidence we have that a god exists is human acknowegement,and we know how flawed that is


  • Jack C.
    Jack C.

    It's pretty well established in science that the universe we live in had a beginning. This of course begs the question who or what started it? Up until the last 10 -15 years the physics community would/could not publicly discuss the origin of the singularity or infinite point from which our universe arose. New theories such as Brane Theory and Multiverse are currently attempting to address this issue with some success. The original problem of eternal existence of the universe(s) vs. universe(s) with a beginning and originating from nothing is still in question. An eternaly existing multiverse from which our universe sprang seems to be the current thinking. The same question pops up when God is put into the mix. Did God have an origin or has He/She existed eternaly? If He/She had a beginning, who or what created God? The only sensible answer seems to be either an eternally existing multiverse or an eternally existing Creator. From this point on it becomes a matter of common sense and faith if you believe in a Creator or just an eternal multiverse. A Creator, who has existed eternally is the only reasonable answer for me. To others a Creator isn't necessary.

  • ziddina


    I think that this is a question for Terry....

    As to the universe "has always existed, has no beginning and no end..."

    Well, if I recall correctly, the red shift/blue shift aspect of galaxies' motion indicates that the present universe is still expanding. There are several theories as to WHY the universe is expanding, one of which is the "Big Bang" theory. There's also the "Oscillating State" theory, which, if I understand it correctly, sounds like the most plausible to me.

    But I'm shooting in the dark to a certain extent, here. If hubby hadn't gone to bed, I could ask him, as he's an ardent amateur astronomer...

    I'll have to look this up...


  • ziddina

    From the "Sky and Telescope" website...

    "The Multiverse

    A deeper question asks why the universe has conditions that allow life to arise anywhere. As many physicists and cosmologists have pointed out, the laws of physics themselves, and in particular the fundamental physical constants, seem to be remarkably well arranged to allow for the existence of any kind of complex matter whatever. The nature of atoms and molecules, the strengths of the known forces, the properties of stars and galaxies - all of it seems to be "just right."

    If some of the fundamental constants (which seem to be arbitrary) had values just a little different, not even atoms could exist. In other cases the Big Bang would have either quickly recollapsed or dissipated away to practically nothing, rather than producing stars and planets.

    This is sometimes referred to as cosmological "fine tuning." Theories that explain it - without relying on deliberate planning by an outside designer - are often based on "anthropic reasoning" or the "anthropic argument." This idea is simple. You merely posit that many other regions of spacetime exist - perhaps other universes disconnected from ours - in which the physical constants take on a wide variety of random values. Most of these universes will not be "bio friendly." We, however, will necessarily find ourselves in one of the rare, special places that are. This will be true no matter how rare and unlikely the bio friendly universes are.

    Dan FalkThis idea of a wider "multiverse" has been gaining ground for decades (see Sky & Telescope, March 1983, page 211). It has been getting boosts from several branches of modern physics. These include the "inflation" model of the Big Bang, which seems to predict that big bangs indeed happen endlessly in spaces outside ours, and string theory and quantum theory, which also seem to allow for unseen regions of spacetime that could be considered separate universes.

    "If there's a multiverse - regions in which different parts have different values for constants like the strength of the dark energy - then the anthropic argument just becomes common sense," said physicist Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas (another Nobel laureate).

    As an analogy, Weinberg asked why we find the liquid water we need all around us here on Earth - even though liquid water is rare on planets generally.

    "If the Earth was the only planet in the universe, then it really would be amazing that it's just the right distance from the Sun to make water liquid, and hence for life to be possible," Weinberg said. However, if there are a great many planets located at all possible distances from their host stars - some too hot, some too cold - then "it's natural that we're on one of the planets that is at the right distance."

    Yet the idea of a multiverse, and the entire problem of anthropic reasoning, remains controversial. "Some of us chafe at using the words ‘anthropic' and ‘common sense' in the same sentence," said Michael Turner of the University of Chicago. "Some of us feel like we ought to concentrate on our own universe before we imagine a multiverse." ..."

    Personally, I agree with that last statement, "Some of us feel like we ought to concentrate on our own universe before we imagine a multiverse..."

    I'll get more data and add to this post...


  • ziddina

    Ah... Now here is the theory that I prefer... I think this was referred to as the "Oscillating Universe", at times...


    "What caused the Big Bang? Did it have a cause? Or did it begin time, creating itself by its bootstraps? These philosophical puzzles have bothered astronomers for decades. Now two cosmologists are proposing a radical new theory in which the Big Bang resulted from the death of a previous era of the cosmos, part of an infinitely old cycle of collapses and rebirths.

    The idea of a cyclic universe has been around ever since the Big Bang was first proposed in the 1930s. But no one could find a way to make the "big crunch" that ends one cycle of the universe "bounce" to become the big bang of the next.

    Now, using tools from the outer reaches of theoretical physics known as M theory, along with concepts of spacetime "branes" moving through higher dimensions, Paul J. Steinhardt (Princeton University) and Neil Turok (Cambridge University) say they have finally done the trick. Their paper (published April 25th in the online edition of Science) "is extraordinarily exciting and represents the first big new idea in cosmology in over two decades," comments Princeton astrophysicist Jeremiah Ostriker.

    Steinhardt and Turok picture two flat, parallel, four-dimensional spacetimes - our familiar universe and a separate "mirror" version - lying close together in a larger, fifth dimension. This outer dimension is inaccessible to us, the same way that two-dimensional creatures living in a sheet of paper could not see into the third dimension above and below their plane. Mathematicians have a word for spaces embedded in higher dimensions: "branes," analogous to 2-D membranes in our 3-D world.

    The two branes in Steinhardt and Turok's theory move together and apart in cycles perhaps many trillions of years long. When they come together and intersect, the energy of their collision fills each with the matter and energy of a new Big Bang. As they move apart, their internal contents disperse over billions of years, as observed. Eventually they become very nearly empty and their motion apart stagnates, setting the stage for them to recollide and set off a new Big Bang creation.

    All this is less arbitrary than it sounds. The physics should work, Steinhardt and Turok claim, and their model explains all the observed phenomena of the cosmos in the same detail as today's standard version of the Big Bang.

    In particular, the cyclic model does away with the need for "inflation" very early in the Big Bang. Inflation, introduced around 1980, was cosmology's biggest triumph since the confirmation of the Big Bang itself in the mid-1960s. Inflation explained things that were otherwise inexplicable, such as why space is so nearly flat (extreme expansion very early stretched out any curvature), and why parts of the cosmos on opposite sides of the sky, which should never have shared any common influence due to the speed of light, can be so much alike.

    Inflation even explains how structure - lumpiness - arose in the smooth early cosmos to condense into galaxies and galaxy clusters. The large-scale clumping that astronomers observe corresponds exactly to the microscopic, random quantum fluctuations that would have occurred when the hot, dense inflationary universe was some 10-32 second old.

    Steinhardt and Turok say their model does all of this just as well as inflation and goes it one better - by naturally incorporating the recently discovered "dark energy," which is making the expansion of the universe speed up. Their theory replaces inflation and dark energy with a single energy field that oscillates in such a way as to sometimes cause expansion and sometimes a recollapse.

    As abstract and mind-bending as it is, the cyclic-universe theory may be testable fairly soon. Inflation predicts that the cosmic microwave background radiation should show certain, specific patterns of polarization. The cyclic-universe version of the Big Bang would leave different patterns. The European Space Agency's Planck satellite, due for launch around 2007, is designed to make just such measurements. If it proves sensitive enough, Planck may declare a clear winner in the showdown of inflation versus the cyclic universe before the decade is out. ..."


  • ziddina

    Damn, I killed another thread... Again...

  • ziddina
    "As an analogy, Weinberg asked why we find the liquid water we need all around us here on Earth - even though liquid water is rare on planets generally.
    "If the Earth was the only planet in the universe, then it really would be amazing that it's just the right distance from the Sun to make water liquid, and hence for life to be possible," Weinberg said. However, if there are a great many planets located at all possible distances from their host stars - some too hot, some too cold - then "it's natural that we're on one of the planets that is at the right distance." ...

    This touches on an attitude that I've seen on-board a few times - and I find it extremely irritating...

    The attitude is this: a creationist declares that the beauty of earth - or its congenial climate - 'proves' that there was an intelligent designer who 'built' this environment especially for humans... That the "beauty" of earth was designed specially for us, the breezes made to blow just for us, the fruit trees to grow just for us, and so on...

    Unfortunately such people fail to see the situation from an exact opposite viewpoint...

    We evolved in this climate, therefore this climate [earth's ecosystem(s)...] would APPEAR "beautiful" to us, because it has been the cradle from which we arose, the life-support system upon which we rely.

    As I am fond of pointing out, whenever such a post comes along, if we had evolved upon Venus, where there is iron rain and iron "snow" occasionally tops the Venusian mountains, then we would look upon THAT ecosystem/environment as "beautiful"; as a 'divine' gift from above in which we can survive and grow...

    An organism will tend to view its initiatory or most nurturing environment as a 'cradle' from which it arose - and if such organism believes in a sky-daddy, then it will attribute that safe 'cradle' as being a loving arrangement by such deity, rather than the current environment which the organism's ancestors struggled to achieve survival within earlier variations of said environment...

    Hope that made sense...


  • trailerfitter

    The universe fgortunately has a finite sell by date on it. It is expanding at a faster rate now than before, it's accelerating as it spreads out.

    Eventually it will collapse in on iteslf perhaps causing yet another big bang and start the whole thing all over again.

    Forget the "without beginning or without end" if you consider man was made in the image us( GOD). puts a new perspective on things. A weak pathetic and cruel creature who would claim everything and prove absolutely nothing.!!! Sorry if you don't feel that way we are all allowed our own opinion.... You can answer what your personal god is to you? He has promised you eternal life,...that is a long time I can tell you even though it will not be on this planet as we have another galaxy hurtling towards us. It will be here in a few billion years though so don't worry.

  • bohm

    smiddy hit the nail on the head. the common theme is this:

    Evangelic: Atheism is bunk, you cant explain why there is ANYTHING rather than NOTHING!

    nontheist: uhm no... so what is your explanation?

    Evangelic: First i will assume what i asked you to proove and found interlectually bunk just before, namely that something has allways existed... then assume this something can just make more stuff as we without further qualifications or explanations, then let me give you an answer...

  • Terry

    We assume our "problems" into existence with our starting premise.

    No matter what your premise is, it will lead you to a conclusion that mirrors the presupposition behind it.

    Science measures what our senses detect. Period.

    The rest is conjured out of imagination.

    Big Bang is a description of a process. A process is active.

    For activity to take place we must posit a something as being active. Game Over.

    Once you ASSUME into existence an unexplained something you have come to the end of what senses can measure.

    Don't ask Science to measure what cannot be detected.

    This is where Science shuts down and we (some of us) allow Metaphysics to take over.

    Metaphysics requires no sensory data or measurements.

    Just don't MIX physics with metaphysics and you won't get a headache.

Share this