# The eternal universe fad **URL:** \ **Category:** Metaphysics & Epistemology\ **Created:** [September 27, 2026, 1:09pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284 "2026-09-27T13:09:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2026, 6:12pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/41 "2026-09-28T18:12:40Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > In case these questions were expecting a response from me: I didn’t really understand. > I don’t know what phrases like consciousness being “dominant” mean. What is meant by that is that consciousness in species become clever enough to evolve from type 0 ( [Kardashev Scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale) ) and if you were to do a search of the short story by Asimov which I mentioned, you would have gotten the clarity you required to understand my argument. That is what “dominant” means: consciousness evolves to the point where it can dictate the next cycle. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2026, 7:43pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/42 "2026-09-28T19:43:49Z")
> [@Michael](#): > > But if “the universe just is” is true then there _isn’t_ an explanation, so it’s unclear what you’re demanding. That there _must_ be an explanation and so “the universe just is” is false? Absolutely not – I’ve said repeatedly that it might well be that there is no explanation. My point is purely that _that_ isn’t an explanation. Put it this way: when we didn’t know why the sky is blue, we could have speculated that there was no reason for it. And that’s perfectly valid to speculate – it could have been right. However, it’s not actually an _explanation_, and we can see that by the fact it doesn’t allow us to make any predictions or inferences. It’s not coming to a greater understanding, it’s speculating that maybe no understanding is possible. > [@Michael](#): > > These are separate questions, e.g. we can determine whether or not our universe is a false vacuum and susceptible to decaying into a true vacuum without knowing the “true origin” of the universe. That’s not what I mean. I mean: if the universe can just exist as a brute fact, then maybe it will cease to exist tomorrow as a brute fact – no internal physics required. Just as with positing that the sky is blue for no reason, we would have no basis for saying it won’t be green tomorrow. (apart from induction of course, but we can also imply induction to the universe’s existence) ---
**Author:** ![Michael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2026, 8:21pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/43 "2026-09-28T20:21:28Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > I mean: if the universe can just exist as a brute fact, then maybe it will cease to exist tomorrow as a brute fact – no internal physics required. It might cease to exist tomorrow as a brute fact even if it doesn’t exist as a brute fact. Or it might be destroyed by a transcendent, supernatural intelligence even if it wasn’t created by a transcendent, supernatural intelligence. Origins do not necessarily restrict possible ends. > [@Mijin1](#): > > Absolutely not – I’ve said repeatedly that it might well be that there is no explanation. > My point is purely that _that_ isn’t an explanation. Okay, but who claimed that “the universe’s origin is inexplicable” explains the origin of the universe? > [@Mijin1](#): > > It’s not coming to a greater understanding, it’s speculating that maybe no understanding is possible. Which might be true, and we might even have a good reason to believe that it’s true. As an example, it might be that when the [inflaton field](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflaton) decayed all information about its earlier state was lost. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2026, 9:06pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/44 "2026-09-28T21:06:09Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > I think I made a good argument re the OP - that an eternal looping universe will move in the direction of the theistic notion of existing within a created thing (thus “God” in the sense I described) thus it is not a great argument for atheists to be making - Where is this argument? I don’t recall seeing this. I know you made some claims in a table which I spoke to. Do you mean those? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2026, 9:43pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/45 "2026-09-28T21:43:29Z")
> [@Michael](#): > > Origins do not necessarily restrict possible ends. Of course. I didn’t claim any necessity either way. > [@Michael](#): > > Okay, but who claimed that “the universe’s origin is inexplicable” explains the origin of the universe? Well famously Betrand Russell, but I was just referring to it as a common talking point. > [@Michael](#): > > Which might be true, and we might even have a good reason to believe that it’s true. Which again I’ve said, multiple times. It may be that no understanding will ever be possible. But that is not in itself an understanding. An understanding can be used to make predictions and/or inferences. ---
**Author:** ![Johnnywas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/22d042/32.png) [@Johnnywas](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnnywas)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2026, 9:54pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/46 "2026-09-28T21:54:51Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > It may be that no understanding will ever be possible. But that is not in itself an understanding. An understanding can be used to make predictions and/or inferences. I am not sure that we disagree here but there is a difference between a) we don’t understand why the speed of light is C b) and the speed of light is C and there is no reason that it is C and not some other value. The intuitive view is that everthing is divisible, everything has a starting point and everything has a prior cause but those things may not be true about the foundations of the Universe. ---
**Author:** ![j\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ab097/32.png) [@j\_j](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/j_j)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 4:24am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/47 "2026-09-29T04:24:49Z")
> [@Johnnywas](#): > > To be precise ee need to make progress but that ultimately there may be brute facts about the Universe. > > Can the Universe exist without any explanation. Could it just be!. To me “brute facts” are somewhat relative. We take X as a brute fact for now, but later explain X in terms of Y. But Y is a “brute fact pattern” — also **for now.** Personally I can’t make sense of an escape from brute fact in general. The nomological deductive method works from a “law” that is “just how things are.” Sometimes we find a more general law, a more general brute fact, that engulfs a small law. But that’s it. To me it’s even humorously mad to demand a “final and total explanation.” But of course “God” is often the “Face” painted on the object of this desire. Nevermind that “God” as a highly complex object is less explicable and more mysterious than what this “God” explains. Of course the point is to “sterilize” the situation. For this “God” cares about us. The world is “made for us.” While it’s easy to mock this meme ( and I sometimes do mock this meme), it is pragmatically powerful, possibly outperforming rival memes. Theism might be a good “tool,” even if it is “irrational” relative to a more technical rationality. ---
**Author:** ![j\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ab097/32.png) [@j\_j](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/j_j)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 4:29am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/48 "2026-09-29T04:29:59Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > Absolutely not – I’ve said repeatedly that it might well be that there is no explanation. > My point is purely that _that_ isn’t an explanation. > > Put it this way: when we didn’t know why the sky is blue, we could have speculated that there was no reason for it. And that’s perfectly valid to speculate – it could have been right. > However, it’s not actually an _explanation_, and we can see that by the fact it doesn’t allow us to make any predictions or inferences. It’s not coming to a greater understanding, it’s speculating that maybe no understanding is possible. I like the pragmatist insight in this. An explanation is not a piece of pure representation. It is a **tool** that proves itself in an organism’s “physical” struggle with its environment. We can view science as a search for “buttons and levers.” In some cases, we just don’t in fact look for a button or lever. We don’t see the profit in it. We leave this or that feature “alone” as simply imposed on us. I don’t see how one could **prove** that no button or lever is there to be found. > [@Mijin1](#): > > I mean: if the universe can just exist as a brute fact, then maybe it will cease to exist tomorrow as a brute fact – no internal physics required. > > Just as with positing that the sky is blue for no reason, we would have no basis for saying it won’t be green tomorrow. (apart from induction of course, but we can also imply induction to the universe’s existence) This touches on Hume of course. “Induction” is “irrational” relative to a Euclidean vision of rationality. Yet we are “insane” if we don’t share in the usual expectation of the persistence of patterns. Still, theoretically I can “see” that “the uniformity of nature” is just “lived” as an unproved “axiom.” ---
**Author:** ![NihilLoc](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/nihilloc/32/843_2.png) [@NihilLoc](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/NihilLoc)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 6:45pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/49 "2026-09-29T18:45:35Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > In terms of ontology, we might want to know why the universe is the way it is, whether another universe could spawn within this one, whether this universe could “de-spawn”… > An explanation would give us a basis for answering these questions. Which “The universe just is” doesn’t. That the universe has always existed as a belief held by some will not slow down the variety of perspectives and endeavors to try to explain empirically what the universe was like at some stage in its evolution, or what it will be like in the future. Every hour spent here is an hour lost in the cosmology department. ---
**Author:** ![Quellcrist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/958977/32.png) [@Quellcrist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Quellcrist)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 10:52pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/50 "2026-10-01T22:52:21Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > But if I were to answer: “They’ve always been there”, did that answer anything? I think the idea that it is just infinite and has no beginning doesn’t explain much to linear creatures who only understand things in terms of starting and stopping, but it is one possibility. I mean for all we know time and the inception of the universe is in a loop rather than a straight line. In that case, there is no end or beginning. I would agree that it’s a waste to debate it as if it can be proven by the small swaths of data we have. Or to give it as if it is an answer rather than a speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Meta\_U](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3bc359/32.png) [@Meta\_U](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Meta_U)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2026, 1:37am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/51 "2026-10-02T01:37:52Z")
> [@NihilLoc](#): > > Every hour spent here is an hour lost in the cosmology department. Don’t worry, the university will always exist. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2026, 9:01am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/52 "2026-10-02T09:01:14Z")
> [@Quellcrist](#): > > I think the idea that it is just infinite and has no beginning doesn’t explain much to linear creatures who only understand things in terms of starting and stopping, Well it’s “linear creatures” advocating for it also. TBH this reminds me a bit of the theist who makes all kinds of confident proclamations about God’s nature (beyond the words of the bible) but anyone pointing out inconsistencies or apparently immoral behaviour gets handwaved with “How can a mere human understand an infinite god?” If a mere finite being can advocate for a position, another finite being can point out issues with it. > [@Quellcrist](#): > > but it is one possibility. I mean for all we know time and the inception of the universe is in a loop rather than a straight line. In that case, there is no end or beginning. Sure, of course it’s a possibility, I’ve been very clear on that. The issue here IMO is the implicit assumption that getting rid of a first cause does something, explanatory-wise. There’s no reason for why so many atheist channels are not only taking this position, but spending a lot of time trying to defend it. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2026, 12:23pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/53 "2026-10-02T12:23:02Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > I know it seems weird to call something in metaphysics a “fad” but a very popular position among my fellow atheists at the moment, certainly going by the youtube channels (Dr Blitz, Deconstruction Zone, Apparently Ian etc) is to take the position that the cosmos has existed for infinite time. The Universe could not exist any other way. > [@Mijin1](#): > > They believe that the big bang happened, but posit that there may have been a big crunch before that, and often point to the recent DESI dark energy data that implies the acceleration of the universe is slowing as supporting evidence (even though that is still a jump from predicting a big crunch). That bang could be just one of countless others, with some might be bigger than the one called the ‘big bang’. By the way, just like the Unvierse never began It also is not expanding. > [@Mijin1](#): > > But if I were to answer: “They’ve always been there”, did that answer anything? Yes, that answered just how ridiculous and nonsensical your answer is. If we already know those things are born, then they could not have always been here, obviously. > [@Mijin1](#): > > It’s why, for me, _I don’t care_ if time is finite or not. It doesn’t do anything, in terms of explanatory power. And yet you can hear debates between atheists and theists that go on for hours trying to argue whether there was a start point. But it is most of the so-called “atheists” and “theists” who both very foolishly ‘try to’ claim that the Universe began at a start point. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2026, 12:27pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/54 "2026-10-02T12:27:09Z")
> [@Michael](#): > > > [@Mijin1](#): > > > > But if I were to answer: “They’ve always been there”, did that answer anything? > > > > It’s why, for me, _I don’t care_ if time is finite or not. It doesn’t do anything, in terms of explanatory power. > > There are only two possible options: either a) something came from nothing or b) there was never nothing and always something. In fact, there is only one option, as the other one is both logically and physically impossible. > [@Michael](#): > > I don’t know if there can be an explanation for (a), There is. > [@Michael](#): > > but perhaps (b) can be explained by _nothingness_ being impossible (and maybe even incoherent). Nothingness is coherent, but as there is a thing with coherence, ‘nothingness’ is an impossibility, both theoretically and empirically. ---
**Author:** ![Garon](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/garon/32/1028_2.png) [@Garon](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Garon)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2026, 12:29pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/55 "2026-10-02T12:29:22Z")
Why must the universe, if being born from a cause, be from the point of nothing? There may have been life before the universe, and the universe was caused by something that had existed for an X period of time, with a Y advancement. I prefer ancient-life, to God, as the cause of the universe. In my opinion, the order probably isn’t nothing to universe, but nothing, to the most simple life, and somewhere down the line, the universe. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 10:57am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/57 "2026-10-03T10:57:03Z")
> [@Garon](#): > > Why must the universe, if being born from a cause, be from the point of nothing? But the Universe being born is an absolute impossibility. ---
**Author:** ![Elephant](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/elephant/32/294_2.png) [@Elephant](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Elephant)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 10:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/58 "2026-10-03T22:38:26Z")
> [@NihilLoc](#): > > ex nihilo nihil fit > > Nothing comes from nothing Unless you’re Lawrence Krauss, then nothing is existent and something does come from nothing. He has a description for this quantum vacuum: **unstable**. ---
**Author:** ![NihilLoc](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/nihilloc/32/843_2.png) [@NihilLoc](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/NihilLoc)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 11:04pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/59 "2026-10-03T23:04:04Z")
> [@Elephant](#): > > Unless you’re Lawrence Krauss, then nothing is existent and something does come from nothing. He has a description for this quantum vacuum: **unstable**. Yes, this business about what constitutes “nothing” is tricky. There are plenty of configurations of the universe which are probably coterminous with a kind of nothing (compared to what?) but it isn’t an absolute nothing our intuition might demand. Why is a quantum vaccum more akin to nothing than a universe filled with matter? It’s all just fluctuations of somekind or another. ---
**Author:** ![Elephant](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/elephant/32/294_2.png) [@Elephant](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Elephant)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 6:33pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/60 "2026-10-04T18:33:22Z")
> [@NihilLoc](#): > > Why is a quantum vaccum more akin to nothing than a universe filled with matter? It’s all just fluctuations of somekind or another. Because QV is a logical term for a space we imagine to be stripped of all tangible and perceptible things. As you said “nothing” is tricky. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Timothy\_von\_Icarus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/count_timothy_von_icarus/32/675_2.png) [@Count\_Timothy\_von\_Icarus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Count_Timothy_von_Icarus)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 9:43pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284/61 "2026-10-12T21:43:56Z")
I’ve often seen the problem of “why fleeces” (why something that is this way, as opposed to any other) the “problem of quiddity.” What explains the particular, contingent “whatness” of the world. This is what Aristotle is focused on, since he assumes the universe is eternal and so he does not think he needs an explanation for why anything _exists_. With later Islamic and Christian thought, you get a clearer distinction between _what a thing is_ (essence, quiddity) and _that_ it is (existence). This makes for two quite different questions. We have to explain the contingent whatness of that which exists, but also the existence of that which is contingent. So it is two different problems. The eternal universe resolves neither, since the the cosmos would at least appear to be contingent (or at least it isn’t obviously otherwise). As a side note, I see “therefore God,” all the time and it’s a pet peeve. No doubt, there are many bad arguments to the existence of God from the problems of quiddity and existence. However, I find that refusing to grant an opponent even basic grammatical correctness in their conclusion a little much (a bit like US Republicans calling the Democratic party the “Democrat” party, and odd linguistic tick). [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284.md?page=2) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-eternal-universe-fad/3284.md?page=4)