P implies P

[lwf]

The big bang (singularity) collapse all the energy back into matter. Entropy begins again.

So then, essentially, everything is infinite. Ultimately there is no beginning, and no end. Just an infinite cycle of "everything" gradually turning into "nothing," then then through a collapsing process we don't understand that we call "the big bang," "nothing" becomes "everything" again.

 

[craig]

So then, essentially, everything is infinite. Ultimately there is no beginning, and no end. Just an infinite cycle of "everything" gradually turning into "nothing," then then through a collapsing process we don't understand that we call "the big bang," "nothing" becomes "everything" again.

That is one theory that is supported by science. There are others. Some think that the universe never restarts. Some think that at the end, time runs in reverse and we live our same lives, forward and backwards forever.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Our entire universe is a science project in a test tube at a University.

 

[craig]

Our entire universe is a science project in a test tube at a University.

I like to think I am an avatar of god. And god is wearing a quest 2 headset.

 

[craig]

So then, essentially, everything is infinite. Ultimately there is no beginning, and no end. Just an infinite cycle of "everything" gradually turning into "nothing," then then through a collapsing process we don't understand that we call "the big bang," "nothing" becomes "everything" again.

I edited in more detail on the big bang. The big bang (singularity) collapses all the energy back into matter. The laws of thermal dynamics apply again. Gravity compresses the matter changing some to energy. Boom. Time is no longer zero and space expands.

 

[NotreDame]

I'd like to hear what others think of statements like "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" (with the intent of conveying that is cannot be, is not evidence of something else).

I regard this as a meaningless statement (in the sense that it's vacuous, conveys no information) or even a misuse of the term "evidence".

I regard the term as only meaningful when in statements like "X is evidence for Y" X and Y are different.

Discuss, is the phrase ever meaningful or is it in and of itself an invalid use of the term "evidence"?

The statement is as awful as you may be inclined to think.

Oxford: evidence: ] the facts, signs, or objects that make you believe that something is true.”

An open door is evidence of an open door. The sound of a tree falling in a dense forest is evidence for such a sound. Seeing the sun in the sky is evidence of the sun. Objects fall to the ground at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared is evidence they do so.

In the absence of evidence these are mirages, hallucinations, or the existence of a Cartesian Demon, falsely projecting an external world to our senses, then the statement isn’t as meaningless as you assert.