The problem is as usual, trying to make something a political principle when it’s not.
The pundits have totally skirted the issue because their associated constituencies want to get a pound of flesh from the other side.
The issue for a science class should be simply to designate a line where the observable is termed as fact and the theoretical is given its own realm. The big bang or any theory of creation is speculatively based on our experience with the facts. I see no problem with pointing out the limits and flaws in such a theory and am happy to do so here. In order to deal with the concept of creation or beginnings you have to take a look at the concept of time.
If you choose to employ the word 'eternity' then you must recognize that you are using a term that specifically means without an end point. If you prefer to think of eternity as time that goes on and on forever, ok, but there are other ways to consider the matter. I will start with the presumption of time that goes on forever.
The idea of linear time that goes on forever has some problems. First there is no way to have a direct experience with history. We have books and other ways to recollect the past but we are always in the present moment when doing so. Similarly, there is no way to have a direct experience with the future. We can have hopes, dreams, plans and expectations of the future but they are constantly being worked out in the present. So, as a rational issue we can refer to things we call 'past' as past-present, since we experience them only as present. And, future-present for our ideas of the future.
So lets look at the past-present. How do we measure what was before now? We find evidence of previous forms, right? We then find evidence of forms or states of things that existed prior to our recorded past. As we do, we determine a state of existence that was before and one that was before that and before that, etc. At some point we run out of solid evidence so we speculate based on patterns we have found that there was a before the before up until the 'beginning'. If you think we live in an eternal universe then you begin speculating what caused or came before the 'beginning' (like a bang or something). So, you lose your beginning with other beginnings that went on before the beginning on an ongoing basis.
At some point with this rationale, we can accept that time is composed of unending before the before's. If not we lose the concept of eternity and we have an actual starting place in which nothing existed before and everything came from this nothing point of beginning. If you do that you have the age old assumptions to make about creation of something that we now call our universe.
In any case, you also have the paradox that is apparent between a universe which, by all evidence, is composed as a temporal realm juxtaposed with the concept of eternity, and an infinite symmetry, which defies the notion of the temporary. When you begin to figure the linear nature of time you have the additional quandary about experience only existing in the present moment.
Digest this much and post whatever challenges or questions you have. Then I will attempt to answer or go on with a part II. |
