You claim the position that the universe has a beginning. I claim that it does not. Your affirmation is in the positive, therefore the onus is upon you, not me, to convince others that the universe has a beginning. However you are arguing from a position and perspective of the majority (of humanity). So those that disagree with you, doubt you, like myself, require an argument. You have to explain how and why, you believe what you believe. What is your faith? Why do you believe “the universe” has a beginning? What is “the universe” anyway? You have not addressed anything, and you propose to be taken seriously? You’ve started off on all the wrong steps thus far. Remember you are on a philosophy forum. You need to present your case for a positive assertion (that the universe has a beginning).
It actually is. Conscious organisms have no reason to think, at first, that consciousness is common among other thinking organisms. With animals it’s even easier and more obvious. They operate on instinct and don’t do much ‘thinking’ at all. Thought, meditation, contemplation, all these acts occur after a specie establishes comfort, free time, and luxury. Laziness allows for musing.
Now, demonstrate to me your counter-points.
The center moves with the ego. Simple animals don’t even know about “the universe” or any “beginnings” of time. You’re overlooking this part.
Conjectures about “the beginning of everything” appear in humans and history. Do you know why? Do you know how? What part does faith and pop religion play? Is it not an artifice that humans believe “God did it”, and furthermore, use this premise as the basis of all total causality, that all causes begin with their conjectured religion?
You certainly do not present your views as such.
I used to believe that humans had “gone beyond” or “matured past” geocentricism. But, this is a false presumption. Just because people repeat what they are told in school, that everything does not revolve around the earth (humanity), doesn’t mean they actually believe it or understand it. They don’t understand it, because, as I mentioned, average people lack sophistication and the reasoning ability to understand why and how geocentricism, or even heliocentricism, are both false. Again, this is because humanity is taken as the predicate, the basis of ‘relativity’.
Imagine deep space in a ship. What then of speed of light, distance, “years”? Isn’t it obvious that what humans know of light, speed, distance, time, are all relative to earth?! You keep skipping over this point. So I know you haven’t really taken it in yet. You don’t really understand.
Does light travel at different speeds through different mediums? Yes, it does! It travels through air, water, a crystal, some materials, faster or slower than others. So even “speed of light” and “light year” especially, are selectively relative. Relative only to specific conditions and prerequisites. Thus they are flawed, and can be (and are) mistaken.
No, because an understanding of objective existence requires reason, not necessarily other people or even the admission of other subjective, conscious perspectives. In other words, objectivity is based on logic and rationality. This is necessarily true to propose the condition that “there exists things and events outside your awareness”. Without suppositions, how can any individual know of what exists “outside” sense-perception? How can an individual be aware of what is beyond his or her experiences?
There is a better method to approaching this point. Physical phenomenon, forces, “natural law”, all have patterns and motions. A tree falls in the woods. It doesn’t require a person there to hear and see it, in order for it to fall down. This is the very solipsistic premise that I’m battling. If you agree with me, a tree doesn’t require permission from humans, to fall down, while unseen and unheard, then perhaps this discussion can move forward.
Qualification requires an honest discussion. Nothing can be qualified when one person or party has premises that they’re unwilling to expose or give up. All cards need to be on the table.
I would very much like to offer that alternative.
But first you need to doubt your Big Bang Theory. And to do this, you need to explain exactly why and how you believe what you do. You need to prove your faith.
But is it not a mere faith in (Abrahamic) god? You believe there is a beginning of the universe, because that is what you were instructed as a child and throughout your life? You had never doubted it, before now? You have never done philosophy, before now? Why do you dabble in philosophy if you cannot doubt anything of real importance or relevance? Have you never questioned all the (human) institutions which led you to believe that there is a “beginning” to the universe, to existence, to time.
Have you ever considered that they’re wrong? Very wrong, not just a little bit wrong, but very very wrong?
No…average people repeat their indoctrination in schools. They say the earth revolves around the sun, or sun around the earth, but this doesn’t necessarily demonstrate their understanding. As mentioned, average people still conceive of existence as solipsistic, such that existence revolves around human consciousness. Specifically…that existence revolves around human “collective” consciousness (they then equate that to “god”).
It’s easy to tear it down. It’s not believable and it’s not realistic. There’s no reason for me to believe that everything in the universe is “expanding away from everything else”. Relativity wouldn’t make sense, if that’s what you believe. Instead some galaxies are moving some directions, and others are moving other directions. There is no “expansion away from everything” because, again, this presumes that humans are using humanity as the ultimate source of everything, which is false.
Can you demonstrate any rational points in the theory that demonstrate how, from relative positions across the universe, your premises remain true?
Obviously not everything in the universe is “expanding” as that would mean there is no source, at all, by which to measure as a standard for expansion. Because then those standards would be expanding too. Therefore it’s illogical.