The fact that an infinite sequence of events and moments would never allow the present moment and the events occuring during it to happen means both the universe and time cannot have always existed. This makes all scientific inquiry irrelevant and unecessary, but it does not mean that there are not ways that sensory evidences will relate to this fact. In denial of this, some posit a cyclical universe that endlessly expands and contracts without the process ever having a finite beginning point, while others posit a static universe that has simply always existed and will always exist. Because there can be no events in the material world without time and because it is logically impossible for the past to be infinite, even if the universe was to die and be reborn in more Big Bangs, it could not have always existed.
Even aside from the logical proof of the matter, scientific advancement points in one direction when it comes to this issue. There is scientific evidence that the cosmos had a beginning and that it will have an end. Since logic is infallible, for only a given person's avoidable misunderstandings of reason are fallible, it would not matter if seeming empirical evidence to the contrary was discovered, for this kind of evidence could only be an illusion. Those who are subjectively, pathetically infatuated with science are prone to dismiss this inconvenient fact. Regardless of their own philosophical incompetence, the scientific evidence, as inherently limited and metaphysically irrelevant as scientific information is, suggests the opposite of what proponents of a universe without beginning or end would insist.
Individual objects within the universe (or multiverse, if there are indeed multiple universes after all) decay and are eventually reduced to smaller or less stable arrangements of matter according to contemporary ideas. Literally anyone can see the evidence for this as they go about their everyday lives, whether or not they have a specific interest in matters of ultimate truth and its importance--objects like food, vehicles, and even the very natural and artificial environments that hold them break down gradually. The only evidence-based cosmological models would agree that the same is true of the whole universe, as there is not any true sensory evidence that the current universe will eternally exist or that it will contract and be replaced by a new universe with its own version of the Big Bang.
While the idea of a chronologically finite universe with a beginning and a likely end is both true by logical necessity and consistent with scientific evidence, the idea of the universe lasting forever (which is related to but distinct from the issue of whether it began to exist) is based on nothing but speculation and preference. All information indicates that the universe as a whole is slowly "dying" at a rate slower than celestial bodies like planets and the objects on those bodies. The accelerating rate of cosmic inflation alone supports the idea that the universe will not suddenly begin to retract and die just to "start" anew. A scientist or lover of science who thinks that sensory perceptions could ever trump or merely rival logical proofs is a fool, and so is someone who thinks evidence favors a cosmos that is in one way or another eternal.
The theistic ramifications of the expansion of the universe are rather stark for those who understand epistemology and metaphysics to a sufficient extent. That is not to say thay it is in any sense self-evident that either a material world or God exists, for the only self-evident truths are the most basic epistemological facts about logical axioms. Still, it is clear for someone willing to look to reason that there is nothing but assumptions and lies for someone to stand on if they think that a cyclical or static universe is reinforced by evidence. Neither logic nor science--and the two are very obviously distinct--supports the notion that the cosmos has always or will always exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment