From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:   
   > Wasn't created.   
      
   We do not know that.   
      
   Our universe could be the result of a cosmological experiment done by   
   lifeforms so far advanced from us that we would never comprehend them and   
   could consider them gods (after all, they could create universes which so   
   far we cannot).   
      
   It could also be a computer simulation developed by such lifeforms; again,   
   if the simulation were sufficiently advanced; if, for example, there would   
   be programming that actively prevented us from finding out that we were part   
   of a simulation (which is reasonable to do; you might not want the   
   simulation to be influenced from the outside), we could never find that out.   
      
   > Always was and always will be.   
      
   We do not know that because currently there is no scientific theory that   
   can describe the state of our universe when its (observed) expansion began,   
   and no experiment that can reproduce those conditions (with the LHC we only   
   get to a collision energy of 13.6 TeV now; using E = k_B T, and calculating   
   from cosmological models an initial universal temperature of or above the   
   Planck temperature (=~ 10^31 K) at the Planck time (=~ 10^-43 s), we would   
   need a collision energy on the order or in excess of 10^15 TeV.   
      
   Also, we do not know that because although in the current Standard Model of   
   cosmology the Dark Energy density is constant, which would lead to an   
   exponential expansion that never ends; but recent observations indicate that   
   that might not be so, which would allow for either a Big Rip or a Big Crunch   
   as well:   
      
      
      
   > Infinite in space and time, with no bounds or limits.   
      
   We do not know that.   
      
   While our universe appears to be spatially flat (i.e. large-scale triangles   
   have an inner angle sum of 180° everywhere), this could just be a   
   measurement problem: a curvature k so close to zero that we cannot detect it   
   within our observable universe (just like some people think that Terra would   
   be flat because they never traveled on it far enough, or never looked at it   
   from far enough above sea level).   
      
   A flat universe or one with negative scalar curvature (k < 0, hyperbolic,   
   shaped like a saddle) could be (AIUI) either finite and bounded, or infinite   
   and unbounded; a universe with positive curvature (k > 0) would be finite in   
   extent but unbounded (if you could travel far enough fast enough, you could   
   end up where you started; like you can travel on Terra in just one   
   direction, go around the planet, and end up where you started).   
      
   > Includes everything, so there can be only one.   
      
   We do not know that either.  Our universe could be one of several, perhaps   
   infinitely many, in a larger structure that we call (for obvious reasons)   
   "the multiverse".   
      
   Or we might have to update our understanding of what "universe" means: It   
   could be that our observable universe is so different from parts of our   
   universe that we cannot (ever) observe (given its expansion), that we should   
   restrict the definition of "our universe" to that region, and consider the   
   other regions separate universes, with what we previously thought to be our   
   entire universe to be considered now the multiverse.   
      
   See also my playlist of *reviewed* YouTube videos on the subject:   
      
      
   > No God.   
      
   We do not know that; see above.   
      
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)