Proof Eternalism is Correct
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Thats potential infinity
DAN: " actual infinity does not occur in reality?
Oh how wrong you are. I will have you know that I am an infinite being. PROVE ME WRONG.
Just flapping my gums and making inane assertions. This is the thread where we do things like that.... right?
Do come back and let us know when your "proof" has been properly validated and peer reviewed.
Did you publish it yet?
[removed by moderator, read it here]
We have no way of proving if this universe is cyclical.
This was pretty much dismissed in the 90's, the universe is in actuality accelerating.
Read Brian Schmidt's book, it'll probably help you to understand... or his Nobel Lecture that affirms that the big crunch is highly unlikely.
The big bang, then there was inflation, then the expansion rate slowed down, now its speeding up, who's to say it not going to slow down in future?
That's a far better approach to the question!
There are many reasons to not expect that to happen and it's got the preponderance of evidence to support it.
Like the discovery of dark energy which makes up roughly 75% of the mass/energy of the universe, and yet it is repulsive rather than attractive, this supporting the model.
Two far more likely scenarios are 'big rip', which is space time actually ripping, another possibility is the universe expanding forever, in which itll be incredibly empty of matter and energy (except dark energy) which will lead to the heat death of the universe... or entropy death depending on how you wish to call it.
It may well be the case that the expansion of the universe will be slowed down for example by another universe. But this is pure speculation. The fact is, you cannot prove your "eternalism" views because they are not falsifiable.
Its not just speculation, there is research suggests universe is currently oscillating:
Here is a simpler proof of Eternalism:
- Assume only now always existed
- Then there is no start of time
- So nothing exists, hence Eternalism
You must realize that is a contradiction right? You claim something is oscillating, but then claim there is no past (only the present). An oscillation must surely require 3 points in time, at the very least.
No Im claiming Eternalism - IE past, present and future all exist.
Is that all you're claiming?
"past, present and future all exist"
The future and the past don't exist do they? Given the linear nature of time, only the present can be said to exist. The past existed, and the future may exist, but they don't currently exist.
Though I'm not sure how any of this evidences a deity or anything supernatural.
Bit of a problem with the 'oscillating universe' hyporhesis....
It cannot avoid the problems with the second law of thermodynamics.
What problem is that? If a Big Crunch follows the Big Bang, then the universe is returned to a low entropy state at the end of time ready for the Big Bang?
Well firstly space time would need to be curved in some way? Yet the physics/evidence demonstrates a flat universe.
Then you have to consider the second law of thermodynamics, here I'll defer to Laurie Baum and Paul Frampton of Cornell university...
Essentially, "one principal obstacle is the second law of thermodynamics which dictates that the entropy increases from cycle to cycle. If the cycles thereby become longer, extrapolation into the past will lead back to an initial singularity again, thus removing the motivation to consider an oscillatory universe in the first place".
We have evidence only that space appears flat (as far as we can see); there is no evidence that time is flat.
Entropy does not always increase. Think about the early universe; just particles bouncing off each other; very high entropy. Then gravity causes formation of stars; lowering the entropy.
Gravity acts to lower entropy. An ultimate amount of gravity will lower entropy completely; as would happen for the big crunch; so that we'd have a low entropy state for the Big Bang.
Note there is only one instance each of the Big Bang / Big Crunch; its the same Big Bang / Big Crunch each time (same time co-ordinate).
The energy/matter contents of the early universe started in a very high entropy state, however, spacetime was very smooth... therefore low entropy.
When the universe expanded, the bounds of entropy increase, whilst allowing the formation or clumping of matter.
This increased the spacetime entropy but reduced the local matter entropy.
Ugh people really need to stop adding attributes to the human created measuring tool that is time.
Time is simply a human created measuring tool that compares one event to others. Like: the revolution of the earth (days) to something else like how long it would take an average person to walk 100 miles.
Of course there is no evidence time is flat, just like their is no evidence that time is not flat. You are assigning attributes that are not there.
Here is another way to look at it, another human created measurement system, one that is well understood and not complicated by a bunch of science fiction: Distance. Do we say distance is flat? Or not? Ofcourse not, that makes no sense. Just like time we take one measurement of distance and compare it to others. The metric system is nice as simple, and just like time, the meter measurement of distance has evolved over time but is still simply just taking one standardized measure of distance to compare to others in a useful way especially for human communication.
The formation of stars does not lower entropy, it increases it. The cold empty space in the vast distances between stars is the state of low entropy.
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
Time is fundamental to the universe. The speed of light speed limit governs every particle in the universe and speed = distance / TIME. It is not some human created concept.
A gas cloud has higher entropy than a star.
"Assume only now always existed"
This is the first part of your assumption. I do not assume that "only now has always existed". Please prove it.
Its a proof via contradiction. You start out assuming what you want to disprove is true and then derive a contradiction.
Who said otherwise? Its the fashion at the moment for theists and deists to make pseudoscientific claims of evidence for their superstitious beliefs, but the fact remains that current scientific thinking doesn't support these claims at all.
Like Breezy's claims for valid scientific falsification of currently valid scientific theories, it's an absurd claim, since one can easily imagine the global reaction if it were true that scienceevidenced a deity or evolution was falsified.
Despite his sneering obfuscation, it's pretty obvious genuine scientific validation of religious beliefs, like his creationist myth, would be global news instantly.
It's equally obvious that whilst religious apologists love to make the unfounded claims for scientific validation, they're just as happy to simultaneously deny things that science does validate when it suits them .
I don't hear theists even mentioning intercessory prayer being subjected to double blind clinical trials, and failing to produce any discernable results. Theists are happy to wave away facts like that, as and when it suits them, then laughably claim science validates their beliefs, but the entire global scientific community has failed to notice or mention it.
Pointing to scientific evidence, and then making subjective unevidenced claims based on personal religious beliefs isnt scientific evidence for those beliefs, that's risible nonsense.
Like Breezy you want to make the claim for svientif8c validation before your claims are even submitted for proper scientific scrutiny.
My arguments are common sense and I will be doing a paper on them, but is useful to bounce these ideas around first.
Well you should start by removing the contradictions you have created. Another good idea would be to stop saying stuff about an "infinite amount of gravity".
A infinite amount is predicted by Einstein's equations. But it is not actually infinite; we need a quantum theory of gravity to understand properly, but space is probably discrete so all of the matter would be packed into one 'cell' so a finite but very large amount of gravity.
Note that the conditions at the Big Bang and Big Crunch would be identical with all matter/energy in the same 'cell'; in fact these two events are one; time loops.
Show your work. For example:
(actually) Infinite is impossible. All matter/energy in the universe would be packed into one cell for the Big Bang/Big Crunch. So that's a finite amount of matter/energy.
Assuming you mean a universe filled with hydrogen, verse the same universe after the gas has collapsed into a star; then your statement is false.
A gas cloud has more micro-states than a star so my statement is true