The notion of infinite time, however, was not accepted by Newton because of conflict with Christian orthodoxy, as influenced by Aquinas.

@Bleux There is no beginning of time, just as there is no end of space. Space can not be created or destroyed, space just is, its ALWAYS been right here - no beginning. It extends forever - The Big Bang theory is wrong.

Yeah definitely a good start for his part.

1st space can not be created or destroyed - the space that is here has always been here.
2nd there is no logical way to argue that space ends at some point. Hence - eternal, infinite space. Aristotle believed this too.

@gater matter can not be created or destroyed, space is just space i.e.length, width and depth. Space is nothingness you may create as much nothingness as you want. What we call the universe is just matter/energy spread out into the nothingness until one day like too little of jam on too to much bread what it nothingness and what is universe will be indistinguishable.

@TheMiddleWay The clear and precise definitions are certainly a good thing in themselves, but I'm troubled by using the scientific definition of space. It has it's advantages, but as you said, it can't define outside of reference objects. But we know that if an asteroid drifted beyond the bounds of current reference points, it would form a new reference point, thereby 'expanding space', even though nothing was actually added. I'm not sure of a better definition myself, but I think a starting point would be to consider it from the angle of absense rather than presense. ?

@DonThiebaut space

/spās/

noun

noun: space

1. a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied.

Note - continuous

@gater The assumptions are flawed. First, space is not an independent entity. There is only spacetime. Second, spacetime is being created all the time as the universe expands. Aristotle was a great philosopher, but not a great cosmologist.

@Bobby9 That would again depend on how space is defined. Under @TheMiddleWay definition, it can be 'created' by moving objects away from each other, and 'destroyed' by moving them together. Under @gater definition above, it could be 'created' by removing obstructions from a given area, and 'destroyed' by adding obstructions. Either way, nothing physical is actually being created or destroyed, which is part of why I expressed dissatisfaction with those definitions when dealing with the notion of areas beyond our universe's borders. But looking at it differently, if we were (just as an example, not a final comprehensive definition) to say that space is the empty area beyond one or more reference points, instead of two, we could say that everywhere that isn't a physical object is space, and that space appears to extend to infinity beyond our universe. Obviously, we can't actually measure to infinity, but it would leave us with a reasonable amount of evidence to assume so for the time being. I suppose it's possible to have some sort of non-Euclidean Pac-Man scenario at a certain point in the distance, but it wouldn't seem likely.

@Bobby9 How are you defining space, then?

@Bobby9 "No one gets to define anything" You do know that people write the dictionaries, right? It's actually really common and useful to establish what definition to use when discussing a complex topic.

@Bobby9 There were at least two definitions clearly stated before you even commented the first time. And I posted a third before you posted yours. So maybe stop with the condescending stuff. it's pretty rude, and not at all constructive.

@Bobby9 @TheMiddleWay contributed the actual scientific definition, and I answered your question by using it, as well as others. The only person here being intellectually dishonest is you for utterly misrepresenting everyone else on this thread simply for not automatically subscribing to the same definition of space as you.

@Bobby9 Buddy. In order to answer the question you asked, I needed a definition for space. Since you hadn't provided one, I offered 3 different definitions, and answered your question 3 times. If you want a 4th answer concerning the definition you provided, I would be happy to postulate what that might be, once you stop being an ass.

@Bobby9 You have accused me of lying again, when all I have done is attempt to answer your question as asked, then explained myself twice. That's not what I call playing nice. Go ahead and post all you want, I won't be bothering to respond to your obvious attempts to feel superior at my expense.

Would the universe be a 'thing'? We commonly think if it as a thing, but really, isn't our concept of the universe just a concept?

@DonThiebaut well, you're talking about two different subjects.
When you say:
"We commonly think of it as a thing" - you're speaking about the universe
But when you say:
"But isn't our concept of the universe just a concept?" - you're talking about the way we define or understand the universe and you're basically in tautology... which is pretty redundant. No offense.

But yes, I would consider the universe a thing. As a matter of fact, it's everything. Everything is part of the one big thing we call the cosmos.

@EliRodriguez11 I'm not sure I understand you, but I'm thinking it's more likely I just wasn't clear myself. What I meant is, all the things in the universe are things, as they are made of matter and energy. The universe as a whole could be defined as the collection of all of those things (the way a spoon is a collection of iron), in which case the universe is a thing. Or, it could be defined as the space in which those things exist, regardless of whether or not they exist within it in the way we are familiar. If the universe is the space, it's not a thing.

Now, given that your last sentence was pretty much definition one, then that's what I'll go with. Which leads me to my second question. How do you determine that things have causes? Actions have cause and effect, yes, but the matter and energy undergoing those actions cannot be created or destroyed under our current understanding of physical laws. Obviously, the current state of our universe had a cause(s), such as the big bang, but the same matter and energy could have existed indefinitely before that in a different state. In that case, is 'our universe' to be defined further to 'the collection of things, in the state we understand them'?

@DonThiebaut
Q1: How do you determine that things have causes?
Answer: Observation. Things interact with other things to become rearranged and create more or less of the same or entirely different things.(physicists recognize both matter and energy as one and the same in different states of existence[a fact check might be wanted here])

Q2: Is our universe to be defined further to 'the collection of Things, in the state we understand them?
-I'd like a bit of clarification or just some re-wording here. I'm having trouble understanding this question.

All things do not have causes - some things just are.

@gater I'd like to know about a thing which has no cause.

@EliRodriguez11 The Universe - it just is - infinite space with matter interacting

@EliRodriguez11 I think from your response, then the question you asked about would be a yes. So let me clarify. You are obviously defining the things as not just a conbination of matter and energy, but as the specific combination. For you, a spoon is a thing, because it is a collection of iron in a particular shape, that is caused by being forged, and ended by being melted down. So for you, our universe is a collection of galaxies in a particular (vague) shape, that is created by a big bang event, and ends with something else. In which case I would say that you are absolutely right. The trouble is, I think @gator is thinking of things as matter and energy regardless of shape. The iron in the spoon is still iron before and after forging, and the protons in the iron are still protons, before and after fission/fusion, and so on. And he seems to define the universe as the space, rather than the thing. Which would mean that he would be correct (or at least I believe so). Discrete objects can be created and destroyed, but matter and energy only change form. I would favor @gator's definitions myself, but can understand yours. At least I think so, I'm making a lot of assumptions here about both of you, so please correct me if I'm wrong!

@DonThiebaut No - The Universe is infinite and eternal - this is a fact. The Big Bang was a relatively recent event in the cycle of nearby galaxies. We can see approx. 46 billion light years with Hubble - its naïve to think space doesn't continue just because we can't see farther.

@DonThiebaut it doesn't matter who's definition you use.
Things as meaning: particular forms or arrangements of matter
Or
Things as simply meaning: matter in terms of atoms, photons, quarks, neutrinos, whatever

They both had a beginning and they both are not infinite. The universe (all of matter and energy) expanded from what is known as a singularity and came to exist in a form which we can understand about 13.5 billion years ago in the event known as the big bang.

So when I say things have causes, I mean matter, energy, and any arrangement of those things have causes for existing the way they do and behaving the way they do.
The universe is a thing. It's literally everything. Every particle. Every wave of energy. Everything. Whatever caused the big bang (if there was a cause) would signify the beginning of the universe, refuting the "eternal universe" concept.

@DonThiebaut it doesn't matter who's definition you use.
Things as meaning: particular forms or arrangements of matter
Or
Things as simply meaning: matter in terms of atoms, photons, quarks, neutrinos, whatever

They both had a beginning and they both are not infinite. The universe (all of matter and energy) expanded from what is known as a singularity and came to exist in a form which we can understand about 13.5 billion years ago in the event known as the big bang.

So when I say things have causes, I mean matter, energy, and any arrangement of those things have causes for existing the way they do and behaving the way they do.
The universe is a thing. It's literally everything. Every particle. Every wave of energy. Everything. Whatever caused the big bang (if there was a cause) would signify the beginning of the universe, refuting the "eternal universe" concept.

@gater I'd like to hear a justification. An explanation for how you come to that conclusion. How do you know that the universe is eternal?

The reason I say it isn't, is because of causality and the big bang theory. Which I've already provided arguments for in other comments and replies on this same post.

@EliRodriguez11 Space does continue forever - it has to, you think there is a wall or some kind of void? Those things still take space and there endless space behind that. I apparently don't have the words to make you understand what I know is true. But that is the Universe - infinite space that had no beginning.

@EliRodriguez11 Except that the singularity is the same matter and energy, except in a different form. A universe in a golf-ball, as it were. That still doesn't prove that that matter/energy didn't exist before hand.

@gater I think you may have misunderstood me.

@DonThiebaut Could be - theres so many responses im not sure who is talking to who - lol

@DonThiebaut I have no problem with agreeing with you about that. The problem is with thinking that the universe is eternal. This is another reason why in my original reply, I mentioned the theory of emergence (though I forgot to address this subject directly). Anyway, I do not think that the singularity and the universe which originated from that singularity are equal. The universe originated from that singularity, but that does not mean that the singularity is a universe. Just the same way we don't think of a singularity as a universe. Perhaps matter and energy can exist eternally in other forms (again, I'm no cosmologists or physicist), however, the post is geared towards the question of whether the universe is eternal.

Still, we have nothing to suggest whether that singularity existed indefinitely.

Edit: just wanted to note that you're really giving me a run for my money lol. Thanks

@EliRodriguez11 Gotcha. That's pretty much were I'm at as well: the matter/energy may or may not have existed indefinitely, but the universe (as we know it) has not. Sounds good to me! ?