I am reading the Anti-Dühring by Engels, in it he proves the false arguments of the person who the book is named after. Engels goes from a varied array of subjects from philosophy, to biology, chemistry, physics, and so on.
At some point, Engels, while correcting Dühring, speaks about the theories of the beginning of existence and points out that Dühring is a supporter of creationism, e.i.: that there was a point where there was only nothing (absolute rest) and that out of this nothing, something came to be (motion). The only logical conclusion to an outlook like the one proposed is the existence of a God, which Düring rejects.
My question would be as following, what is the Marxist take on this, because if we assume the previous mentioned, we need to either accept the existence of God, or to believe there is some sort of unknown scientific law that allows the creation of motion out of absolute rest. Both seem very unlikely.
A third option is that time and matter have always existed since infinity, and that they will keep on existing until infinity. Which is the option that makes the most sense from the point of view of dialectical materialism.
From my understanding, though, neither of these three theories can be understood as “bad infinities” (in the Hegelian jargon), since they do not represent a contradiction in itself.
Do we have scientific proof that further discredits any of these three possibilities?
The cosmological model of today basically sustains that at some point, a Great Expansion occurred, forming little by little the universe we know as we know it. This great expansion isn’t in the same understanding as Ex Nihilo, but that before our universe, a singularity was, and expanded. Being a singularity, it just points out that existence was already.
This doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening as of now in another point in our infinite cosmos, or that it was the first time ever happened, nor that there was anything that triggered the great expansion using any sort of intelligence, being basically, an incredibly bigger event as a supernova, which also changes the matter and energy(which is also considered matter), into forming different stelae bodies.
But I’m more into the issue of biology, which lifes behaves pretty much like anything else, even if we have autoconcience.
I can explain a lot more about evolution, if you like, even if it’s offtopic in another place lol.
But on topic again: using a Dialectical Materialist model is basically what are we seeing as of now, with no notion of spirituality/idealist/divine intervention happening.
So basically what you are telling me is that the Big Bang only proves the creation of the universe as we know it, but that time and matter were constants before if we analyze it through the lenses of dialectical materialism?
Through the lenses of logic following the evidences, more like. But… What I have learnt from Dialectical Materialism, is that it’s basically following science, since… Well, existence is both Dialectical (it changes over time even if being the same object, place, etc. Sòcrates with the river?) and Material(not magical aka idealistic, like Platon).