« on: Today at 01:46:55 »
backtracking such a singular event too easily lends itself to the conclusion of a beginning.A bound to time is allowed by relativity theory. There are examples.
The big bang does not suggest a beginning. It does not posit an 'origin' of the universe, nor the lack of anything on the other side of 'time zero' so to speak. It's just a point beyond which we cannot look.
If you want a universe model without time bounds, there is something like the Schmelzer model which denies all the premises of relativity theory and comes up with different ones. There are no temporal bounds, and thus no big bang, black holes, worm holes, etc. The universe extends infinitely into the past, and there is a big bounce, but not a compression of material in otherwise empty space, which (as I've pointed out repeatedly) cannot evolve forward.
The problem with a "beginning" is that it is closely attributed to an act of creationYes, that's a problem, at least with a model with a universe as something contained by time. The Schmelzer model does this, necessitating the lack of a beginning. Einstein's model does not do this, so isn't something in need of creation.
The following users thanked this post: Bogie_smiles