NewStats: 3,261,174 , 8,173,289 topics. Date: Wednesday, 28 May 2025 at 12:42 PM 2d57t

DeepSight:


Quite agree.
We are hamstrung by the limitations of language in these matters.
I generally view "origin" in this context as "bedrock" - in other words, its like saying such and such is the bedrock of existence.
That bedrock, is of course eternal, and without beginning.
Again, this is one of the fundamental ideas people have in mind when they speak of "God."

Existence has no bedrock.....

Things just exist. ....

KnownUnknown:


Smart and concise.
Do you still hold unto the extraphysical plane

That there are non physical aspects to reality is for me a fact.

and the oneness of infinity

However clumsily I expressed my thoughts back then, I still view the default state of reality ("the original state" if you like) as being both singular and infinite/ eternal.

or have you itted that it was just your definition of heaven/god(ultimate source or origin of existence)

Of course it always was simply my own rendition of things. I will not say of "heaven" though. I dont know what that word means.

PS: That you refer to the oneness of infinity indicates you are a real old-timer here. I hail oh.

Crystyano:


Existence has no bedrock.....

Things just exist. ....

Have you considered this carefully?
Are you certain it makes sense?

"Things just exist?"
Is this not worse than proposing magic?

DeepSight:


Have you considered this carefully?
Are you certain it makes sense?

"Things just exist?"
Is this not worse than proposing magic?

Life doesn't make sense!!!



Existence means more than madness!!!



There's no reason for the nonsense that remains as it is!!!


Reality is pure nonsense!!!



My brother was wrongly detained but some bastards on Nairaland are still condemning him without evidence...


He's suffering in prison but they're still condemning him...


Let's trash it out!


triplechoice is one of those bastards whose mother shouldn't be proud of having such a son as that bastard!!!



Call this whatever you want to call it!


I don't care!!


If you think going deep in thought means life should make sense to you,


Then that's your problem!!!


Rubbish;!!?!!!

Crystyano:


Life doesn't make sense!!!
. . . . Call this whatever you want to call it!

This sounds like some pain.
Just to be clear - I have not said life makes sense. Personally, I often consider this world the mischievous prank of a sadist.
However I am clear that that takes nothing away from the philosophical questions at play concerning existence - a la: why something instead of nothing.

By the way, I sent you an email.

DeepSight:


This sounds like some pain.
Just to be clear - I have not said life makes sense. Personally, I often consider this world the mischievous prank of a sadist.
However I am clear that that takes nothing away from the philosophical questions at play concerning existence - a la: why something instead of nothing.

By the way, I sent you an email.

I have replied the email....

As for why something instead of nothing...,
I think there's no reason why there's something instead of nothing...

.

.

Pr0ton:


Atheists aren't claiming they know everything. No one knows how everything came to be. But as to questions about God/gods atheists claim to know they don't exist, at least in the sense of rationality, else we can all come up with something out of thin air and claim no one can say for sure it doesn't exist.

Personally, the idea of God as a conscious supreme being who created the universe (religion aside) doesn't make sense to me when you look farther from our world and see how different and infinitesimal our reality (a sense of conscious causality) is to the universe. If a universe that is vastly without consciousness exists and runs on its own, why do we demand consciousness be related to it? It shows our idea of God is more like a mere imagination sprung from a reality our brain is used to so that we tend to think in that direction.

If you ask me about the origin of everything, I will simply tell you I don't know. There is no need to involve a god. If you then ask me about the god of the theist, I will tell you it doesn't exist. If you ask me about a god but not belonging to theism, I'll tell you you're now imagining.

Have you seen my email



I need you to help me to stop those bastards!!

KnownUnknown:


Singular as the primeval atom of the “Big Bang” or something else?

What do you think of this idea which follows from the nonphysical: preexisting matter arranged by the “artificer” based on the nonphysical forms that are eternal?
Since all arrangement of matter represent copies of the perfect forms, shortcomings should be expected. Which serves to explain the “imperfections” of this world.

Non physical can only exist as the property of something physical.....


There's something that I need you to do for me...



Should I send an email?



Some bastards here are accusing me needlessly....

First, let me point out that contrary to what your posts suggest, I do not hold or know the absolute truth of the workings of the universe. Even in science, and to a great extent, nothing can be regarded as absolute truth concerning our reality. With that, I agree with some part of your response like the problem of consciousness and science not answering the questions of why. On that front, and strictly by the definition of the word agnosticism, I am agnostic. Everyone is agnostic about something as no one is an island or fountain of knowledge.

Where I draw the line as regards agnosticism is where the topics of God/gods are being introduced. And I want to have your clear and explicit intention when you use the word God. The way I see God, and the way it is defined as, is as a conscious supreme being. If you do not mean God in that sense then I do not have a problem with you. The only little problem would be why you would choose the word God and not some other term like force or energy. This is like stubbornly (I mean no offense) subtly forcing the idea of a spiritual possibility. This is why I say agnostics using God are obsessed with their former theistic concept of God and can't just move on from it.

There are still some parts in your response I do not agree with and I have pointed them out below:

DeepSight:

The essentials of the idea of God are not entirely "wishful thinking." Some of the basic precepts can be grounded in philosophy and logic. A simple example is the quality of transcendence. This is the idea that whatever caused the universe to begin cannot itself be the universe - thus - the universe being material, the cause must be immaterial, the universe being of time and space, the cause must be beyond time and space, and so on. In short, that the cause transcends the universe.

There is no such thing as existence outside time and space. Every existence must be within time and space. To cause denotes motion and you can't have motion without time. If the universe has a cause at all the cause must be within space and the action itself would reflect time. It is intuitively impossible to have an action without space and time. A cause outside space and time does not and can not exist.

The Multiverse theory you referred to is notoriously from thin air. It is a mere fanciful postulation without any conceivable proof. It not only lacks proof but is in fact unprovable - at least not until the day you find a way out of this universe. It is strange how atheists often hear this fanciful term and lend it greater credence than the idea of a God.

I should let you know that I do not regard this theory as truth or scientific (in the way science works) My original point was that I would consider the talks of it over the talks of God. The reason being the multiverse hypothesis uses some scientific language while the idea of God is just a thought. Its credence over God is also such that top scientists (like Neil Tyson, Brian Greene and Stephen Hawkins himself) consider it. The only flaw being that it is not falsifiable or available for testing but it does draw inspiration from science. And that I would give more credence over a mere thought.

The excuse of/ allusion to virtual particles in a quantum vacuum is dead on arrival as there is no perfect vacuum observed anywhere. The said quantum vacuums contain low gaseous pressure and as such the excuse dies before taking off.

My introduction of this concept isn't an argument about whether a quatum vacuum is empty or not (of course, it isn't) I brought it up to show an example of untriggered movements that you alleged don't happen. Virtual particles pop in and out of a quantum vacuum but they do not have a cause. I would like to know if you have gone beyond current science knowledge and let the world know what causes virtual "particles" to come in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum (where no real particle can exist)

The fact that strange things happen in the quantum world was enough to frighten and humble Einstein. Is it not enough to frighten and humble you? What do you really know, oh human being?

Who said anything about not getting frightened by quantum mechanics I said the fact that strange things happen in the quantum world shows us that we do not know the absolute truth about the universe. And questions as to its origin should be answered with a short simple "I do not know" instead of "a God could have done it".

From my point of view, you still need basic humility in matters like this. You presume too much. We are too little to make the sort of presumptions you are jumping to. This is why Agnosticism in these matters remains the wisest, most honest and most enlightened position a man can take.

Again, this is you perceiving me wrongly.

Apply agnosticism in virtually all existential matters.

Cogito ergo sum - is as much as a man can know for certain.
Everything else is up for grabs.
The world you see could even be a simulation.
Very likely is.

I do not disagree with this at all, just like I pointed out when I started this response. I am open minded to any scientific (doesn't really have to be scientific, but at least draws inspiration from science, like the simulation example you put up there) possibility about the origin of the universe. This is what I'm agnostic about. But about God/gods as conscious beings? I think we are thinking too far and are starting to imagine things. It is no different when I tell you two great spiders who are bothers worked together to create different universes of which ours is one. Would I be rational to argue you can't entirely dismiss this possibility, that you can't disprove it? It is safe to talk about God/gods as that - talks. Not in a serious sense as to argue that one can not disprove the possibility.

Crystyano:



Have you seen my email



I need you to help me to stop those bastards!!

Honestly, I really don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know the story. But I'll check my email again.

Pr0ton:


Honestly, I really don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know the story. But I'll check my email again.

Thanks for choosing to check!


Asking the right questions won't kill you....



Some bastards have concluded that I scam people on Nairaland just because I wasn't able to travel to Asaba or/and accept the job someone wanted me to do...


They also see my expression of anger as an evidence...



Dumb lawyers or what exactly?

They can't prove anywhere in the universe that I was lying about anything...

Pr0ton:
First, let me point out that contrary to what your posts suggest, I do not hold or know the absolute truth of the workings of the universe. Even in science, and to a great extent, nothing can be regarded as absolute truth concerning our reality. With that, I agree with some part of your response like the problem of consciousness and science not answering the questions of why. On that front, and strictly by the definition of the word agnosticism, I am agnostic. Everyone is agnostic about something as no one is an island or fountain of knowledge.

Where I draw the line as regards agnosticism is where the topics of God/gods are being introduced. And I want to have your clear and explicit intention when you use the word God. The way I see God, and the way it is defined as, is as a conscious supreme being. If you do not mean God in that sense then I do not have a problem with you. The only little problem would be why you would choose the word God and not some other term like force or energy. This is like stubbornly (I mean no offense) subtly forcing the idea of a spiritual possibility. This is why I say agnostics using God are obsessed with their former theistic concept of God and can't just move on from it.

There are still some parts in your response I do not agree with and I have pointed them out below:



There is no such thing as existence outside time and space. Every existence must be within time and space. To cause denotes motion and you can't have motion without time. If the universe has a cause at all the cause must be within space and the action itself would reflect time. It is intuitively impossible to have an action without space and time. A cause outside space and time does not and can not exist.





I should let you know that I do not regard this theory as truth or scientific (in the way science works) My original point was that I would consider the talks of it over the talks of God. The reason being the multiverse hypothesis uses some scientific language while the idea of God is just a thought. Its credence over God is also such that top scientists (like Neil Tyson, Brian Greene and Stephen Hawkins himself) consider it. The only flaw being that it is not falsifiable or available for testing but it does draw inspiration from science. And that I would give more credence over a mere thought.



My introduction of this concept isn't an argument about whether a quatum vacuum is empty or not (of course, it isn't) I brought it up to show an example of untriggered movements that you alleged don't happen. Virtual particles pop in and out of a quantum vacuum but they do not have a cause. I would like to know if you have gone beyond current science knowledge and let the world know what causes virtual "particles" to come in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum (where no real particle can exist)





Who said anything about not getting frightened by quantum mechanics I said the fact that strange things happen in the quantum world shows us that we do not know the absolute truth about the universe. And questions as to its origin should be answered with a short simple "I do not know" instead of "a God could have done it".




Again, this is you perceiving me wrongly.





I do not disagree with this at all, just like I pointed out when I started this response. I am open minded to any scientific (doesn't really have to be scientific, but at least draws inspiration from science, like the simulation example you put up there) possibility about the origin of the universe. This is what I'm agnostic about. But about God/gods as conscious beings? I think we are thinking too far and are starting to imagine things. It is no different when I tell you two great spiders who are bothers worked together to create different universes of which ours is one. Would I be rational to argue you can't entirely dismiss this possibility, that you can't disprove it? It is safe to talk about God/gods as that - talks. Not in a serious sense as to argue that one can not disprove the possibility.

The absolute truth is the absolute reality....so,no need for stuff like the absolute truth ABOUT reality...

Reality is the same as the truth.... it's the same as existence.... it has no limit...


If a quantum vacuum can't be empty,then saying no real particle can be found in it is a contradiction....


If the particles are not real,then the vacuum is empty.....


There's nothing like every existence...

Space and time have to do with how long something with a beginning and end can exist ....

Existence itself has no beginning/end so it's not affected by time and space...




DeepSight...

Crystyano:


If a quantum vacuum can't be empty,then saying no real particle can be found in it is a contradiction....


If the particles are not real,then the vacuum is empty.....

Fields are not particles. Fields can exist without particles. A quantum vacuum can be filed with field (at zero point energy) without real particles.

There's nothing like every existence...

Space and time have to do with how long something with a beginning and end can exist ....

Existence itself has no beginning/end so it's not affected by time and space...




DeepSight...

Existence means being. You need space for being to be possible. Without space being is not possible. Time comes in where there is a change.

Pr0ton:


Fields are not particles. Fields can exist without particles. A quantum vacuum can be filed with field (at zero point energy) without real particles.




Existence means being. You need space for being to be possible. Without space being is not possible. Time comes in where there is a change.

Fields ....... alright.

Anyway...,

Being means existing..... not existence.
Anything with limits needs space to be possible...


Existence has no limit...

As for change,

It still has to do with limits...


No limit....no change...

Crystyano:



Fields ....... alright.

Anyway...,

Being means existing..... not existence.
Anything with limits needs space to be possible...


Existence has no limit...

As for change,

It still has to do with limits...


No limit....no change...

[quote author=Pr0ton post=108235485][/quote]


Alright..


It has different definitions.....


Being/Existence has no limit so it's not affected by space/time...



It's something that has limits or something that possesses existence or something that shows existence in a specific way that is affected....



But I need you to help me to respond to useless allegations .....


It's necessary....



I hope you have seen the email....

So Nairaland is still a toxic piece of shite

BlueRayDick:
I don’t think we we have so much atheists like that in Nigeria( by atheists i mean people who actually don’t believe in the existence of God/the supreme being) , rather what we have in Nigeria is a growing case of people that have stopped going to church or mosque because they’ve grown tired of it and have seen the hypocrisy of some of the proponents of the two major religions.

Nigerians (especially the youth ) are just not interested in what pastors and Islamic clerics have to say.

Right

Judybash93:


Right

How would you really know if a person believes in God?

Are you in the person's mind??




I have seen many bastards on Nairaland thinking they know what people think ....... that's just dumb...


In fact,
I have something to share with you....

Would you like to hear it

DeepSight:


Small problem - current science tends to disclose a beginning. Un-triggerred movement is not known to us.

Beginning of space and time as we know it, beyond that it is unknown so how does that give you license to assume a transcendental something? On what basis does that idea subsist?

Pr0ton, LordReed, Chrystyano,
Travelling cross country interstate two days and will revert tomorrow.
Thanks for your comments.

LordReed:


Beginning of space and time as we know it, beyond that it is unknown so how does that give you license to assume a transcendental something? On what basis does that idea subsist?

Fairly straightforward logic good sir: and in this I draw from the premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which asserts that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Not only is this intuitively true, it is also self evidently true. A thing which commences, or begins, necessarily is prompted or triggered. And it could not be so prompted or triggered by itself: hence we deduce that it is so prompted or triggered by something beyond itself.

This is all that transcendence here refers to. Something beyond the thing which commences or begins.

DeepSight:


Fairly straightforward logic good sir: and in this I draw from the premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which asserts that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Not only is this intuitively true, it is also self evidently true. A thing which commences, or begins, necessarily is prompted or triggered. And it could not be so prompted or triggered by itself: hence we deduce that it is so prompted or triggered by something beyond itself.

This is all that transcendence here refers to. Something beyond the thing which commences or begins.

We might really never be able to know if the Universe has a cause for sure, at least in this realm.

Personally, I hold the notion that the Universe is self-created or come from an earlier universe that's self-created, and that space and time exist only within our Universe, but our Universe doesn't occupy any space.

That means space is inside the Universe, not outside it, implying our Universe really has no beginning since it doesn't occupy any space.

But all these are philosophical ideas, and only key advances in science in the coming years can really help us gain a better understanding of the matter of the origin of the Universe.

This post is an insightful take on the Kalam Cosmological Argument: https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/6690123/all-science-key-facts-researches/1#107300391

Pr0ton, thank you for taking the time to give a detailed and reasoned response. Many are so flippant in discussions concerning these serious existential matters these days, that it is always refreshing when one comes across a person who accords such discourses the seriousness they deserve.

Pr0ton:
First, let me point out that contrary to what your posts suggest, I do not hold or know the absolute truth of the workings of the universe. Even in science, and to a great extent, nothing can be regarded as absolute truth concerning our reality. With that, I agree with some part of your response like the problem of consciousness and science not answering the questions of why. On that front, and strictly by the definition of the word agnosticism, I am agnostic. Everyone is agnostic about something as no one is an island or fountain of knowledge.

Fair enough, and most appreciated.

Where I draw the line as regards agnosticism is where the topics of God/gods are being introduced.

My dear friend, I doubt that we little human beings are in any position to draw this line with respect to what we can or should be agnostic on. The mere twin facts of our own existence and the size of the universe are enough to strike us with silent wonder with respect to what else or who else may be out there. Most cosmological scientists these days believe that given the size of the universe and the abundant presence of carbon therein, it is extremely unlikely that we are the only life - intelligent or otherwise - in the universe. And if we can hold out that possibility, it is not unreasonable to fall into even greater and more silent wonder when faced with the question as to what may exist beyond our universe. There is no reason for you to peremptorily foreclose or delimit the conversation in that regard, and you are too limited - too vastly limited to decree that no one may reasonably envisage the subject of the existence of God or gods.

I can only grant that you may reasonably reject the existence of the sort of God or gods described by religions - some of which can be shown to be ontologically inconsistent and therefore either impossible or improbable. But as I pointed out to you earlier, many people have different perceptions of "God" or "gods" - and you would be wise therefore not to generalize in this matter. There are so many different persuasions on the matter that in fact you simply cannot reasonably generalize. Where do you want to place the Deist? The Pantheist? The Panentheist? The Autotheist? The Dystheist? The Maltheist?

To put this in context I am forced to repeat myself with respect to the size of the universe: Imagine a grain of sand. Just a single grain of sand at the beach. Imagine that within that grain of sand a solar system exists and in that solar system a planet exists and on that planet, 7 billion people dwell. Now none of these 7 billion people have ever stepped out of this grain of sand and not only do they make presumptions as to what may exist at the other end of the beach, they are so bold as to "draw the line" with respect to the existence of beings on other continents far away from that beach, and even other worlds outside the planet on which that beach is situated, the beach where that grain of sand is.

This only represents a faint clue as to what you are doing by presumptuously "drawing line(s)" against the existence of this or that beyond our universe. When you consider it carefully it must become out-rightly ridiculous even in your own sight that you do so.

And I want to have your clear and explicit intention when you use the word God. The way I see God, and the way it is defined as, is as a conscious supreme being. If you do not mean God in that sense then I do not have a problem with you. The only little problem would be why you would choose the word God and not some other term like force or energy.

Sincerely, I personally have no idea as to the consciousness of God or gods - I only know that it is a matter well above our pay grade. My private philosophy regarding the existence of God has become a little complex: and perhaps this is not the place to delve into it properly as it is bound to raise too many complex, mysterious and puzzling questions.

Nevertheless I cannot imagine that you are in a position to insist that all definitions of God require the factor of consciousness (and in this I trust you refer to the sense of a self-conscious personality). I can conceive of, and I certainly know of many theistic persuasions that do not quite see "God" this way - some perceiving "IT" more as a neutral all-pervading force. Nor does this mean they are dis-entitled to the application of the word "God" - as the principal common factor for the definition of "God" is its role as the origin, and to a lesser extent, sustainer, of all things.

This is like stubbornly (I mean no offense) subtly forcing the idea of a spiritual possibility.

What is wrong with the possibility of spirituality? What does spirituality mean to you?
For me, the spiritual is inevitably real.

There is no such thing as existence outside time and space. Every existence must be within time and space. To cause denotes motion and you can't have motion without time. If the universe has a cause at all the cause must be within space and the action itself would reflect time. It is intuitively impossible to have an action without space and time. A cause outside space and time does not and can not exist.

You have a point here, and to be honest, I had feared you would bring it up. I had held back my more thorough view on this subject, on of my fear that it would muddy the waters before we even understand one another. However, as you have been astute enough to point this out, I will take the plunge.

In truth, when I use the words "time and space" here, I have only used them in the way materialists and scientists like to use them. I have used them simply in a casual and convenient way. However if you go through my posts on this forum spanning a decade, you will see that I do not believe in this type of materialistic time and space. However, for the sake of clarity, and on of the limitations of language, let us call this type of materialistic/ scientific time and space "finite time" and "finite space". And let us say that our words above refer to this finite time and finite space.

Because in truth, I believe in infinite time and infinite space - both of which are self-existent and cannot be created, cannot "start" - cannot "begin" - cannot "end" - cannot "expand" and so forth. This self-existent infinite time and space, in my worldview, are components of what I call God. Indeed, this is a good juncture at which to tell you that I have once described "God" as I see IT, on this forum, as "the sum of all self-existent laws."

Therefore again, please be wary of generalizing and drawing lines on what people may perceive of as "God."

Moving back to your point - it is in that infinite time and space, which transcends our finite realm, that I assert there remains the open possibility of causes which transcend our realm.

I should let you know that I do not regard this theory as truth or scientific (in the way science works) My original point was that I would consider the talks of it over the talks of God. The reason being the multiverse hypothesis uses some scientific language while the idea of God is just a thought. Its credence over God is also such that top scientists (like Neil Tyson, Brian Greene and Stephen Hawkins himself) consider it. The only flaw being that it is not falsifiable or available for testing but it does draw inspiration from science. And that I would give more credence over a mere thought.

Putting religious fantasies aside, the pure concept of God as an eternal source-point of existence also has both philosophical and logical credence.

My introduction of this concept isn't an argument about whether a quatum vacuum is empty or not (of course, it isn't) I brought it up to show an example of untriggered movements that you alleged don't happen. Virtual particles pop in and out of a quantum vacuum but they do not have a cause. I would like to know if you have gone beyond current science knowledge and let the world know what causes virtual "particles" to come in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum (where no real particle can exist)

So long as the vacuum is not a perfect vacuum, it is presumptuous to say that virtual particles have no cause. Indeed the only reason they refer to a quantum vacuum is in a bid to demonstrate that something can emerge from nothing - which fails straightaway, because the alleged quantum vacuum, as we have agreed, is not "nothing" or empty either. It is absurd to observe anything whatsoever emerging from something else and conclude that it is causeless. The very fact that it emerges from something else is enough to strike that thought away - even if the particulars - the specific scientific details - as to how it emerges remain unknown!

Now when you add to this the fact that virtual particles are not in fact a "thing" per se - but only a transient quantum fluctuation - then this line of reasoning must be put firmly away from discussions about causality. Because once we acknowledge that such alleged quantum vacuums are not "empty" then it becomes both mischievous and duplicitous to use fluctuations therein as proof that causality is not required in order to instigate movement. Those alleged vacuums contain low gaseous pressure, and thus a (very rough) example would be to say that this is like alleging that ripples in the wind are causeless, if one does not know how such ripples come about.

This is cast iron logic, and this will not change no matter how many scientists swoon over the false idea that virtual particles disprove causality.

Who said anything about not getting frightened by quantum mechanics I said the fact that strange things happen in the quantum world shows us that we do not know the absolute truth about the universe. And questions as to its origin should be answered with a short simple "I do not know" instead of "a God could have done it".

Good. Hence my recommendation of agnosticism as wise and honest.

A001:

We might really never be able to know if the Universe has a cause for sure, at least in this realm.

Personally, I hold the notion that the Universe is self-created or come from an earlier universe that's self-created, and that space and time exist only within our Universe, but our Universe doesn't occupy any space.

That means space is inside the Universe, not outside it, implying our Universe really has no beginning since it doesn't occupy any space.

Do you acknowledge that our universe is expanding?

DeepSight:


Do you acknowledge that our universe is expanding?

No, I don't have to acknowledge it just like I don't have to acknowledge gravity exists. That the Universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating are well-established scientific facts with lots of evidence.

A001:


This post is an insightful take on the Kalam Cosmological Argument: https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/6690123/all-science-key-facts-researches/1#107300391

Thanks for this - I have gone through it and its genuinely well considered stuff.
There was however, only one point that truly came across therein, for me - and that was the point about halving time or space and never arriving at a true zero - thus supposedly debunking the idea that the universe had a beginning.

While this is an interesting point, my view is that material things cannot be eternal in the past because only self-existing things can be eternal in the past. Matter, in my view, is not self existent, and the key pointer to this is its changeability. Self-existent things are immutable and matter is mutable. This is a delicate philosophical point which I have rarely been able to across to other people, but its a very valid one in my view. In light of this consideration I lean towards the view that we live in an open system in which there was an infusion of energy of a transcendental nature which led to the expansion of our universe (or universes).

A001:

No, I don't have to acknowledge it just like I don't have to acknowledge gravity exists. That the Universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating are well-established scientific facts with lots of evidence.

Good. Next question is - into what is the universe expanding?
I ask this because you asserted that there is no space outside the universe.

DeepSight:


Thanks for this - I have gone through it and its genuinely well considered stuff.
There was however, only one point that truly came across therein, for me - and that was the point about halving time or space and never arriving at a true zero - thus supposedly debunking the idea that the universe had a beginning.

While this is an interesting point, my view is that material things cannot be eternal in the past because only self-existing things can be eternal in the past. Matter, in my view, is not self existent, and the key pointer to this is its changeability. Self-existent things are immutable and matter is mutable. This is a delicate philosophical point which I have rarely been able to across to other people, but its a very valid one in my view. In light of this consideration I lean towards the view that we live in an open system in which there was an infusion of energy of a transcendental nature which led to the expansion of our universe (or universes).

I agree with everything you said except the last part. Whether the Universe is an open or closed system is a controversial issue in Cosmology or Physics generally.

If we live in an open system as you say, that means the sum-total of energy and matter in the Universe isn't always constant. That's a violation of the law of conservation of matter or the first law of thermodynamics.

It doesn't make sense.

Also, if an infusion of energy of a transcendental nature led to the expansion of our universe as you said, that also violates the above laws.

Then, where did the infusion of energy come from?

What makes you say the universe is an open system?

DeepSight:


Good. Next question is - into what is the universe expanding?
I ask this because you asserted that there is no space outside the universe.

It's expanding into nothing, just as the expansion started from nothing.

Space and time are mental constructs and don't exist in reality.