Upon embarking upon such a quest as the origin of the universe, a demonstration of why something exists instead of nothing should be the initial presentation: either something exists or nothing exists, BUT NOTHING DOES NOT EXIST; therefore, something exists. That something is the first existent, immaterial space in the pre-universe with a capacity for becoming actual space in the current universe. It is known that actual space is a requirement for mass and that it preceded mass, the existence of which is undisputed since idealism is irrelevant and the Standard Model of quantum mechanics has been established. Immaterial space in the pre-universe became actual space in the current universe in accordance with Aristotle’s view of potential and actual. Immaterial space in the pre-universal had a capacity for becoming actual space since immaterial space in the pre-universe became actual space in the current universe. Potential immaterial space became actual space (inflation preceding the big bang) liberating the energy of the big bang, originating the universe.
Perhaps God is the first existent, searched for by philosophers. I thought this natural view might be interesting to some inquirers.
Actual Space meets the Kantian transcendental requirements by being absolute, necessary and universal; therefore, space is not empirical.
Of course, it is always fascinating to speculate about the origin of the universe…the origin of existence itself. The biggest of all the Big Questions. That’s what the dwindling number of philosophers in our pop culture world do…think about things like this.
But there’s still that huge gap between thinking about it and actually being able to demonstrate that what you do think about it is in fact true.
Each of us on average in the modern industrial nations will have about 75 years on this Earth. And then one by one we are dead and gone. So, it comes down to what science is able to discover about the universe in our own individual lifespan.
Unless of course the universe is the creation of a God able to provide mere mortals with immortality.
Only back again to believing it and demonstrating it.
Abraham, Moses, the prophets, David, Solomon, Socrates & the Greeks, early apologists, Aquinas, Augustine, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Copernicus, Euler, Thales, Kant etc, Einstein etc, Al Ghazali… so many others.
Like Pachacuti, who questioned the supremacy of Inti:
(link removed cuz redirects)
The concept of “nothing” is flawed. There is no such thing as nothing. We know for a fact that there is something now, and as far back in time as you look you find there was always “something.”
But the real problem is that when someone asks, “where did the Earth come from” and I answer “The Sun”, then the question is changed to where did the sun come from. Then it’s where did the galaxy come from. Then it’s where did the universe come from. Then it’s where did the multiverse come from.
So it is never good enough to answer the question of where one thing came from, they will keep moving the goal post. There will never be an answer where infinite time in the past began, because the past is infinite. There was no beginning to time and there will be no end to time.
They might as well ask where did infinity come from. But that has no beginning so it didn’t come from anywhere, or anything, at any time in the past. The past is as infinite as the future is.
We are a product of our environment. We came from earth, which came from the core of the sun, which came from the core of the galaxy, which came from the core of the universe, which came from the core of the multiverse…
What is your evidence of the multi-verse (tangent) and aren’t you just pushing the question back infinitely so that you could never really get started because there is no starting point? If you can never get started, how can you get here? Answer: the infinite drops you into a whole timeline.
I had a starting point.
The earth had a starting point.
The sun had a starting point.
The galaxy had a starting point.
The universe had a starting point.
The multiverse had a starting point.
But TIME did NOT have a starting point. There were objects as far back in time as you can write a number for.
There were object 1 year ago. There were objects 1 million years ago. There were object 1 billion years ago. There were object 1 trillion trillion years ago. There were object 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the power of 1 million years ago. A 1 with 100 trillion zeroes after it, years ago there were objects in space. There is no number you can write big enough to claim there was no time before that many years ago, because the past has no beginning.
Like I said, your question is really, " when did the infite past begin?" And that is a nonsense question. It’s like asking when did the never-beginning begin. Nonsense.
I’m OK with, you know, the sequence of time. I’m OK with there being a time at which something was not and then a time at which something was/is, and then a time at which that thing is no longer. From a PARTICular perspective.
All I’m saying is that the origin of the universe is not limited at/to “the beginning”. Time is whole.
Just like if our thoughts were mingled in the same headspace. We could ask which of us were thinking our thoughts in that headspace first & it would reduce to absurdity. We both think we were first in our headspace, and the other intruded. The Original is first in a way that we intruded into their headspace…by their own design.
But as far as I’m aware, I was the first to point out that everything came from the higher level core. Guess what? That is EXACTLY how the second law of thermodynamics would say where everything comes from. Mass evolves to space because mass gets less dense over time. We are but a spark from the sun burning up. The sun is but a spark from the galaxy burning up. The universe is but a spark from the multiverse burning up. At every level the structures are getting less dense and the mass is moving outwards from the core. It is like ashes coming from a fire. You know what happens to fires if you don’t put more wood on them? They burn out by way of the wood evolving to ashes, and eventually space. The wood is converted from wood to heat, and ultimately space, which is simply distance. Wood turns to distance. Duh?
So when the pre-universe is considered, (progression not regression) is not a problem nor is time. That is why the pre-universe is considered–even Kantian antimonies are eliminated .
