-1

My friend (catholic) and I (atheist) were taking about religion. We bare both scientists and therefore wanted to look at it scientifically.

After discussing, We have stopped at the question about where everything Came from. We have concluded that there is three possibilities for this.

Let's use the big bang as a scientific discussion point. Either, you have the big bang, and something before it, making it. Something whole that can not be easily explained. E.g. existence is a line with a start.

The other is that it is not a start. There is, even though we do not know what it is, something before the big bang. And before that, there is something else. E.g. existence is an infinite line.

The last one is a circle, but I would say that this could fall in either of the categories. Either there is something making something as infinite going around, or the circle started somewhere.

I would think that because the line with a start explains existence with "there just is something beyond our comprehension", we could also use the same argument for the infinite line. They are therefore equally probable.

Do you have any interesting thought around this?

Improve this question
3
  • How about the block universe view, i.e. eternalism? The idea that all points in spacetime are equally real with no objective "present moment", so in a sense the whole structure exists "all at once", like the way a mathematical platonist would imagine geometric shapes existing. In this view one could see the Big Bang is just the "tip" of this 4-dimensional geometric structure, like the tip of a cone.
    – Hypnosifl
    Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 4:10
  • In Eastern traditions, both Indian and Buddhist, there are cycles. The present universe is just one of an unending infinite number of cycles, expansions and contractions. There is no 'before' as the cycles before are infinite. The big bang is just the start of a cycle. Tradition is unclear as to whether there is one 'universe' or an infinite number of universes.
    – Swami Vishwananda
    Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 10:21
  • @SwamiVishwananda That's not surprising and hardly unique to Eastern Traditions. Most of modern physics makes heavy use of describing things as cycles. Waves, oscillations, any force can in first order be modeled with a small disturbance followed by a harmonic oscillation. And cycles are everywhere, in astronomy which for lots of cultures had near religious importance, in how that creates day and night, years, a concept of time itself. So you can argue the importance of cycles comes from their importance in nature, but is it just an extrapolation from what we know to assume it goes beyond?
    – haxor789
    Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 14:39

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

My suggestion is that you may want to read more about the Pre-Socratic Philosopher, Democritus-(who lived during the time of Socrates....around the 400's BC/ BCE).

Democritus of Abdera-(an Ancient Greco-Thracian Philosopher of Science), was the Founder of Atomic Theory who quite literally invented the word, "Atomos"-(or "Atom). For Democritus, the Cosmos was comprised of infinite atoms which had no beginning, nor a foreseeable end. In other words, according to Democritus, the Cosmos was and is, an indestructible entity that has always existed and will continue to exist infinitely. Now keep in mind that Democritus lived long before satellites and telescopes, however, his theory of an atomic cosmos was just that....a THEORY. Yet, such a theory, paved the way for the monumental modern advancements in Physics, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Chemistry and Nuclear Sciences centuries later.

I personally cannot say whether Democritus was right or wrong, though I can say that the notion of an infinite and indestructible universe is nothing new and has sparked the curiosity of Philosopher and Scientist alike...for thousands of years.

(Note: Interestingly, Democritus, never mentions A Deity or Deities, as the Center Point or Grand influencer of physical reality; there is essentially, no Metaphysical component to his ideas and he seems to have been a strict and rigid Physicalist. In all likelihood, Democritus was probably one of History's earliest Atheists or Agnostics).

Improve this answer
3
  • Atomism is a kind of physicalism, but also note that some ancient commentators attribute to them the doctrine that atoms are purely geometric objects, with no non-mathematical properties. Sadly most of the writings of the original atomists are lost, so we don't have definite verification of this from early atomists themselves, but Stobaeus reported that they taught the atoms were "propertyless" aside from "arrangement, shape, and position", and Aristotle said they "make everything into numbers or composed of numbers; even if they do not say so clearly, all the same that is what they mean."
    – Hypnosifl
    Commented Jun 16, 2022 at 2:39
  • (Both quotes are from The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus, a collection of ancient fragments by and about the atomists, edited by C.C.W. Taylor. The Stobaeus quote is on p. 120-121, the Aristotle quote is from p. 82, it's originally from part 4 of book III of On the Heavens)
    – Hypnosifl
    Commented Jun 16, 2022 at 2:41
  • Thank you for the comments. Yes, it is sad that the writings of the original atomists are lost-(including, most notably, Democritus), though luckily we have Aristotle's lectures and writings on the subject matter.
    – Alex
    Commented Jun 16, 2022 at 4:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .