There are countless models, all of which are have the Cosmological community agree don't work, but what opinion do you have in this regard? Do you think the universe had an absolute beginning, or do you believe the universe is eternal (theories of multiverses, or models like that)? Please describe why you think or feel the way you do, and why. I believe the universe had an absolute beginning. I think if the universe is eternal, then we would have already observed the total expansion of a lifeless universe "cold universe" from the natural expansion. Because of this concept, I believe the universe had an absolute beginning. Now there are arguments that the universe will expand, then contract back to singularity. Personally, I struggle with this theory, since the mathematic models that try to explain this have been refuted. So most of my opinions on this matter are a result that the universe is "ever expanding", and will eventually expand to a "cold universe" state.
Well... I think that beginning is more theistic, but I won't get into that. I'm just curious what others think.
Good question. Personally, I feel like we don't really know enough yet to make a suitable assumption. There are literally hundreds of thousands of theories, and more than a few sound realistic. I get a headache just thinking about it.
So true. I believe the concept is outstanding. I mean a microbe sees the pool of water it lives in as its universe, while we see our current solar system as our just a few hundreds of years ago. As the science evolves, so does the size of the universe, IMO.
Our 3-Dimensional physical universe is immersed in its own 4-D time, so our 4-D time began when our universe began, so there is no 4-D "before." But we may also be passing through Ds higher than 4, so there are more time levels, which existed "before" our 4-D time sprang into existence. Our universe exploded into existence at the beginning of its 4-D time, but the multiverse (=existence itself) includes, and exists above, all levels of time.
not sure what you mean here, but there are models that as far as we know "work" just fine in principal. cosmologists just have no current way to test them. this is a subject, like QM, where human intuition and philosophical reasoning can be objectively shown to be almost completely unreliable. so however someone intuitively feels or whatever someone philosophically deduces about whether the universe began to exist or not means squat. In fact we don't have the information necessary to even say if "absolute beginning" is a meaningful concept.
recent debate between WLC and cosmologist Sean Carroll on this and related subjects (that WLC decidedly lost) - [video=youtube;X0qKZqPy9T8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8[/video]
Above u said there are models that work, yet the youtube link you provided, Carroll openly admitted none work. Then u said Carroll easily won this debate. So what is it? There are working models or not? Shit even carol admits his model doesn't work.
Depends on what theist point of view you believe. If you believe in a God that created the universe, then you would at least need to believe he's been around before the universe began.
Don't know why I don't understand what you are saying. Can you explain your concept so I can understand it? I mean what is "4D"? Like space, time, matter and dark matter?
Of Course there was a beginning. Some may call it "The Big Bang", some The Singularity. This Universe is continuously expanding has Hubble observed, therefore tracing back to to the origin of the expansion you must arrive at the Singularity. Then of course there is nothing in this finding that proves the ancient Hebrew that first recorded the events in Genesis as incorrect. Genesis|1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis|1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis|1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ... This fella was much sooner to bloviate on the subject than Hubble, Hawkins and gang
This is like asking fish to speculate not only what's beyond the shore, but up and over the adjacent mountain range. Not enough info, man.