Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Personally, I prefer the version that relies on time - if the natural world has always existed, then a logical contradiction takes place; the point in which we exist would never be reached.
|
You agree that time/tempoirality is a human construct, right? It, more or less, fixes our place based on what became before and after ... i.e. cause and effect. No one can say with any certaintly that the natural world has always existed. What we can say; however, is that from the point that we have recognized ourselves as beings (i.e. self-consciousness), we have needed a way to fix ourselves in the general scheme of "cause and effect". It's more or less a grounding point. Who's to say whether our brains were advanced enough prior to the discovery of self-consciousness to even recognize temporality. Chances are that nature existed before this and has always seemed like it was here because at the point at which we gained this awareness, it was. From this point, we had to assign, due to logic, a starting point ... only the starting point was, and always will be theoretical. You are aware that a corollary to the "Big Bang" theory is "The Big Smash" in which many scientiests still theorize that the expansion of the universe will, at some time in the future, reach a critical state and begin to contract upon itself until it reaches maximum density and again foster another "Big Bang" in an endless cycle ... ad infitum ... so where does that put your starting point and the idea of any real temporality?