The Universe has always existed

I quite enjoyed reading my peers last round, and am going to hi-jack his format of a conversation and compose a transcript of how the hypothetical conversation would actually happen. The Fool: That is it is only forms of existence that get destroyed only to become other forms, which change into others, but never into absolute non-existence. " That something cannot come from something is a purely logical explanation called the principle of sufficient reason proposed by the Anaximander of Miletus 610 BCE. The knowledge that something does not come from nothing COULD NEVER BE ASSERTED NATURALLY OR EMPIRICALLY. For it is often the case that WE SEE THING APPEAR OUT OF NOWHERE, that is what random is. And in science WE PERCIEVE THAT ALL THE TIME, especially in QUANTUM MECHANICS. (NOTE THE CONTRADICTION) Me: Then the statement that something cannot come from nothing, though it may be logically true, is ultimately false, science has disproven it. Also, what is the purpose of this statement? "Secondly, this is posted in the philosophy section not science. It is also a false dichotomy anyways. " Science is in and of itself a philosophy. Science an explanation of how and why things are/work. A Philosophy is ones own explanation of how and why things are/work. Physicalism is a philosophy, physicalism is based on science, ergo science is a philosophy. The Fool: Ok, but what about the mind? It doesn't help to say something is immaterial for our minds are immaterial and they exist, and thus they are in the universe. Me: As pro burden of proof rests with you. As con i need not present a case as to why it is not true, unless you give evidence suggesting that it is. If you do not all that I must do is say you have no proof, therefore it is not true. Besides, conciousness or the mind is merely a physical aspect of our brains. There is a multitude of evidence to support this, but again, I need not even present this evidence until you present evidence yourself. Until that point the immateriality of the mind is a null point. The Fool: But the immateriality of the mind cannot be proven! Me: Exactly, next point please. The Fool: According to science the empirical universe is expanding at the speed of light, so even to look for the end, makes absolutely no sense because you could never catch up to it. Me: First off the universe is not expanding at the speed of light. It is expanding faster than the speed of light. The Fool: But no thing can travel faster than the speed of light. Me: Except spacetime, the limits that apply to objects in the fabric of spacetime do not apply to spacetime itself. This much we can see from judging the speed at which galaxies move away from each other. Galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, therefore it MUST be concluded that spacetime expands faster than the speed of light. The Fool: This is logically impossible Me: And yet it is true, so your logical deductions do not apply The Fool: But what is logically true must remain true. Me: No, logically true things are proven false all the time, such as the principle of sufficient reasoning. Something can be created from nothing, therefore the principle of sufficient reasoning is false. The Fool: Then what basis do i have to hold the validity of my argunents with? If logical deductions alone are not sufficient to prove my arguments. Me: Exactly. Although I will point out that a logical conclusion is a form of evidence, but if it is shown to be empirically, naturally, etc. false, then the logical deduction is false. As of yet you have not even used a logical deduction to attempt to hold the assertion that immaterial things exist have you? The Fool: No :( Me: Then as of yet your argument holds no basis as you have not proven anything to be true. Again, next point please The Fool: net energy has nothing to do there being energy. Its just law of conservation again Me: Ahh I see my semantics have caused a misinterpretation, let us allow stephen hawking, explain. Stephen Hawking: The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. ([1] Hawking 1988, 129) Me: The total energy of the universe is zero. There is actually no energy in the universe, so how is matter created with no energy? The only logical answer is, it is created from nothing. The Fool: But the principle of sufficie- Me: Enough with that, that has been disproven, stop bringing it up. Next point please. The Fool: time does not exist in the universe. You heard it here first! . And that is straight from the hill! Me: If time does not exist, then space does not exist. And if space does not exist, then there can be no things that exist. Space and time are two seperate, but ultimately combinable entities in the realm of physics. Here, let a lesser known mathematician who worked with the widely known physicist Albert Einstein on his theory of relativity, explain. Herman Minkowski: Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. (2) On another note let me bring this point up. If time does not exist then resolution is proven false. Here is why, The resolution is: The universe has ALWAYS existed. Always implies that time exists, for if it did not, there would be no always to speak of. Not only does always imply the existence of time, but it implies infinite time. To state that time does not exist and say that the universe has ALWAYS existed is contradictory in nature, therefore the resolution is proven false semantically. The Fool: Then its probably in my best interests to retract the assertion that time does not exist? Me: Precisely, furthermore, if time does not exist then space does not exist, spacetime remember? If space does not exist, then no thing can exist, because for something to exist there must be spacetime for it to exist in. So if spacetime does not exist, then the universe. .. The Fool: Must not exist? Me: Precisely The Fool: But the universe exists! Me: So spacetime must exist! The Fool: Oh :( Me: Now then, we have established that spacetime exists, and that the resolution entails that the universe has always existed, therefore the universe has been around an infinite amount of time. What, I ask, does this entail for space? The Fool: That space is infinite? Me: Precisely, which leads right back to Olbers Paradox. If Universe has always existed one must hold that spacetime is infinite as well. If spacetime is infinite then one MUST conclude that it is filled with an infinite number of things(infinity leads into infinity into infinity) and therefore an infinite number of stars. If this were the case then the night sky would be completely bright, as every line of sight would end at the very bright surface of a star. Oh and theres another problem with a universe that has always existed. Zero-Entropy, otherwise known as the heat death paradox. The argument holds that: If the universe were infinite in extent it would also have to be infinitely old. Any hot object transfers heat to its cooler surroundings, until everything is at the same temperature. For two objects at the same temperature as much heat flows from one body as flows from the other, and the net effect is no change. If the universe were infinitely old there must have been enough time for the stars to cool and warm their surroundings. Everywhere should therefore be at the same temperature and there should either be no stars, or everything should be as hot as stars. Since there are stars and the universe is not in thermal equilibrium it can not be infinitely old; since it is not infinitely old it cannot be infinite in extent.