(February 28, 2013 at 9:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(February 28, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Chas Wrote: No, the Big Bang does not show that the mass/energy of the universe can not be eternal. It may be cyclic.You're right, it could be. It's not the majority theory though. From a Deistic perspective I'm not sure that it matters. The idea is that the universe has many constants, like the speed of light, that could conceivably be different than they are now. The question becomes why does our universe have this particular structure and not another? What are the rules that govern the formation of universes and where do these rules come from? They could not have come from the universe itself because that creates a viscous circle.
'Why?' is a human question, a human need. The universe does not need to have a reason; the question may be inapplicable. The 'rules' are merely the observed properties, nothing circular about it.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
