Far out cosmology (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 08, 2014, 02:34 (3763 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Matt: I'm making no such assumption. I'm saying plainly that the universe sprang into being, and that because the universe has a finite mass, it has a finite energy, and because of the existence of dark energy and black holes the amount of available energy to the cosmos is decreasing over time as the universe expands and cools. Nothing here is controversial.
> 
> I thought the laws of conservation of energy dictated that the universe would always contain the same amount of energy, but get colder as it expands, with less energy for the spacial size increase. I.E. heat death.
> -Energy is still conserved, but in black holes it becomes useless (you aren't going to extract any matter/energy) and in dark energy, that energy isn't usable to do work. So while we're dealing with finite sums, we're still losing energy in the perspective of being able to do useful work. -> 
> > 
> > Matt: What you're saying here (to me) more like what dhw was after with his "eternal energy." I think the "something from nothing" dilemma is a false dilemma based on millions of years of evolution training us that all things have causes. If God exists, then God came from nothing as well: As I stated years ago, all you're doing is shifting the goalpost. Assume God is real, before the universe. Then, God IS the universe. Then God initiates the big bang: The *universe* has now shifted to "The universe + God" which is still... the Universe. All you've done is applied an artificial separation between the Universe and God. You're still ultimately arguing for a static universe. (If God is eternal so is the universe.)
> 
> Unless He always existed and created the universe from within Him. Panentheism. 
> > -Which still doesn't negate you from answering the question: How did God come from nothing? -> > Matt; In Agrippan Skepticism, since this question can be shown to be never-terminating, it isn't a valid question to begin with. 
> > 
> > We've gone 'round on this before, to put it simply, existence exists.
> 
> Yes, something is eternal. I have my choice, what is yours?-There isn't sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion. C'mon, there's a reason I'm an agnostic. You really think it's that simple?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"