"V-for-Vendicar" wrote in message
...


"The universe was Static some years back."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH................
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN

"watch-dog" wrote
Or is there no facts to confirm the universe before the bang and
expansion?

The Mindless KKKonservative can't even formulate a valid, parsable
question.


You seem to have difficulty with this issue of the static universe. Plato,
and most Of the philosopher's did in fact believe in what is called a static
universe. this means that the universe always existed, and always was as it
is, and furthermore means that the universe has to be the way it is.

It was of course it was the great Christian philosopher saint Thomas Aquinas
that finally cracked open this philosophical puzzle, and was able to move
philosophy to the next level. St. Thomas Aquinas clarified the Christian
point of view that God was NOT part of the universe, and Furhtmore that the
universe did NOT have to exist. By the way this Christian point of this view
is Unique among any of the large widely adopted religions of the world. In
other words, the concept put forth by saint Thomas Aquinas was that the
universe did not have to exist, and thus answered the other question of:

who created God then?

answer:
the answers very simple, and something that is eternal does not have a need,
or cause (or beginning). (somting that is etertnal does not have a
beginning, and therefore does not need a creator).

In fact in even at the turn of the century and up to the nineteen twenties
there was a good number of scientists and people who that still hung on to
the idea of the static universe. The reason why so many scientist to fairly
recent historic times believed in the static universe is very simple:

If you don't believe in a static universe, then your now faced with the idea
and concept that the universe was created, or *caused*. Of course with
technology, satellites, telescopes and the discovery of things like fusion,
it became painfully obvious that the stars in this sky were not balls of
light hanging by some imaginary string, but they were balls of fusion with a
limited fuel supply. thus the body of evidence and knowledge was increasing
to a point that most educated people could easily conclude that the stars as
they are could NOT have always existed.

Of course the problem with the big bang, is now all the scientists were
forced to adopt the Christian point of view that the universe was
caused...and IS NOT STATIC! (so this is why the static universe is so
prevalent along a lot of scientists, because they tend to be somewhat anti
Christian in their viewpoints, and adopting the cost universe means that
there also adopt in the point of view to his innocence a Christian point of
view).

Since the stars have a limited life Spans, and things don't have to be as
they are, then we have a philosophical problem here to solve. We can use
philosophy to show that a triangle must have three sides, and many of the
early philosophers stated that if the universe is static, then everything
must be the way it is, just like that triangle (it HAS to be that way). In
fact a good number of philosophers stated that we don't have to use
empirical science and observation because if the universe is static then it
has to be the way it is without a cause.

So there was a portion of the scientific community that grudgingly accepted
that the universe is not static. since universe is not static, then it's
caused, and has a beginning. Furthermore this means that now you have to
explain how this process happened.

Amazingly enough, the average scientist now has adopted a Christian point of
view that of the universe had an instant point of time for its creation.

So in the issue of science and philosophy, the static versus the caused
universe is a rather big issue, and the widespread adoption of a cost
universe really plays into the hands of the Christian point of view.

Super Turtle.