• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Abdul Goatherd

Premature anti-fascist
Aug 2, 2003
3.400
9.950
So I was poking around in some early mythologies and some other early writings, and wondered to what extent did old civilizations embrace the idea of "destruction".

Most (not all) civs - Egyptians, Greeks, Babylonians, Hebrews, Norse, Hindu - have some sort of the story of "Creation", the beginning of the world.

Creation stories are not always dependent on a Creator. In some mythologies, Creation is an intelligent act by some creator god yes. But in many cases the World just appears without explanation.

Curiously, most mythologies I've come across do envisage a remarkably similar pre-creation universe being a vast, dark, watery mess ("chaos"). Then either a god (or gods) bring order to it, and "create" the world. Alternatively, a bit of land just spontaneously emerges somehow from the water, then gods come into being, and the rest of creation follows.

The pre-creation "watery chaos" rests on what seems like a general presumption of many ancient people that the sky is made of water. I mean the sky is big and blue, looks a bit look a heavenly ocean. And we all know water comes down as rain. So it seems obvious there is "water up there" that leaks occasionally. Many posit that the world we are living in is some kind of land & air pocket between two oceans - one below us, one above us. So Creation often explains how that land pocket in the watery chaos came about, and "inserting" ourselves in it.

But that aside, what I'm more curious about is just as there is "Creation", is there "Destruction"? If the World has a beginning, does it also have an end?

This is a little harder to tell. I mean there are a lots of mythologies that talk about mass death of humans or even life on Earth - in some Great Flood or cataclysm by some angry Deity and the like. But I don't seem to come across myths of a clearly predicted end to the Earth itself. That is the destruction of this little earth mound & air pocket.

The ancients were clearly aware land is not constant. Mountains are eroded by wind and rain, landfalls from cliffs into the sea. Volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis are real and change the landscape. But following that observation, land of God's good earth is constantly being gradually lost. Does it get to a point where all land is eventually swept into the sea and disappears? Is there an "end of the world"? Just as it came from watery chaos, will it return to watery chaos?

Aristotle is bit tricky. For him, everything is biological - earth, planets, everything is to be compared to a living organism. Yet living organisms decay and die. Does the Earth die? In his Meteorology he is clearly aware that there are "signs of decay" - erosion and the like. But he posits optimistically that unlike animals or plants, decay on Earth is not a sign of impending doom of the whole. The decay in certain parts is counter-balanced by rejuvenation in other parts. Old mountains may disappear in one place, but new mountains "appear" in another place (doesn't explain how). So on the whole Earth persists - and will persist eternally.

But I've come across allegations that this optimism was uniquely Aristotleian. That other Greek schools (apparently Stoics & Epicureans) were convinced the Earth will "die". That these "signs of decay" are irreversible signs of the looming eventual death of the Earth. It is not that they think time or world ends altogether, but rather that it periodically destroys itself entirely, and re-creates itself entirely. But I can't find sources with details about that.

Cycles of death & re-creation seems to me to be a theme that is touched upon by many world religions. Clearly with humans - upon death, humans travel to an afterlife, or are resurrected or re-born. If they think about the world by analogy to a living organism, they would naturally also believe that Earth goes through a similar death & re-creation cycle. But I don't really find examples of that clearly articulated anywhere.

I was wondering if anybody had come across this kind of stuff, whether in mythologies or ancient writings. Creation myths are all over the place, but doom myths are a little scantier. I was just curious as to if and how they envisaged the End of the World.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Have you considered delving into more detail of Mexica and Norse myths?

These are the only ones i can recall. Not going to dare to elaboraye but it's interesting topic, given my doomer/collapsenik soul.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm by far no expert but afaik at least the Christian (Book of Revelation) and Norse (Ragnarök) mythology have these. Both with destruction and (re)creation of the world or a new world.
A "new heaven" and "new earth" replace the old heaven and old earth. There is no more suffering or death. (21:1–8)
God comes to dwell with humanity in the New Jerusalem. (21:2–8)

it will entail a catastrophic series of natural disasters, including the burning of the world, and culminate in the submersion of the world underwater. After these events, the world will rise again, cleansed and fertile, the surviving and returning gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors, Líf and Lífþrasir.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm by far no expert but afaik at least the Christian (Book of Revelation) and Norse (Ragnarök) mythology have these. Both with destruction and (re)creation of the world or a new world.


These are definitely examples of an "End of the World", and they're probably the most famous.


The study of the End of the World (or of human history) is called eschatology. Here's Wikipedia's article on that for a starting point.

As for specific examples... in general, the Abrahamic religions have an idea where the world as we know it ends once in preparation for its purification. By contrast, Hinduism sees it as a repeating event where the world is destroyed and remade over and over again.
 
What is the Big Bang theory as not another myth of destruction and resurrection?
No wonder - it was first proposed by a Catholic priest :)
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
The general Indo-European mythbase has an end of the world; Ragnarok was already mentioned, obviously, but the Iranians also have an end of the world.

What they seem to also share is a belief that it's not THE end of the world; merely an end, before a new beginning.

So with that, both the Indo-European and Abrahamic system of beliefs have a similar trajectory; creation, existence where we are now, end and fresh beginning.

Now my knowledge reaches its limits completely beyond them, but wikipedia suggests the Egyptians also have a myth about the sun being swallowed and the world flooded.
 
What is the Big Bang theory as not another myth of destruction and resurrection?
No wonder - it was first proposed by a Catholic priest :)

Umm, the theory contains neither destruction nor resurrection. Not sure where you got that idea from.
 
Umm, the theory contains neither destruction nor resurrection. Not sure where you got that idea from.

I think he's referencing the idea that our universe will end in the Big Crunch and then begin again with another Big Bang. This is a proposed theory, and it does imply cyclical time. The general term for that is "Big Bounce", and it has its own problems - it's been out of fashion as a scientific theory since the '80s.

Now my knowledge reaches its limits completely beyond them, but wikipedia suggests the Egyptians also have a myth about the sun being swallowed and the world flooded.

About the Egyptians, they actually have multiple ways for the world to end. There's Apep eating the sun and returning everything to primordial chaos (which is a doom myth that doesn't imply resurrection), but the Book of the Dead also has a passage where Atum says that he will return everything to the waters of chaos.

Interestingly enough, this eschatological idea is the only one I know of that doesn't feature a rebirth of some kind (besides the Big Crunch and the Big Rip, which are scientific theories).
 
I think he's referencing the idea that our universe will end in the Big Crunch and then begin again with another Big Bang. This is a proposed theory, and it does imply cyclical time. The general term for that is "Big Bounce", and it has its own problems - it's been out of fashion as a scientific theory since the '80s.

Yes, the 'Big bounce' idea suffers from the fact the evidence does not support it. There is not nearly enough mass (including dark mass) to cause the universe to contract, and then there is the effect of dark energy...

As a scientific theory it is wrong, at least without some extraordinary new evidence.
 
Umm, the theory contains neither destruction nor resurrection. Not sure where you got that idea from

What was before the Big Bang then?
I think most of it's followers acknowledge the cyclic nature of the Universe :)

Yes, the 'Big bounce' idea suffers from the fact the evidence does not support it. There is not nearly enough mass (including dark mass) to cause the universe to contract, and then there is the effect of dark energy...

As a scientific theory it is wrong, at least without some extraordinary new evidence.

Of course you know it is wrong :rolleyes:

Any evaluations of the mass of the Universe, dark matter or the amount of dark energy are actually, in our state of scientific knowledge, the same funny fairy tales like the Greek Mythology :)
 
Last edited:
What was before the Big Bang then?

Irrelevant question that makes no sense, and only betrays your lack of understanding.
I think most of it's followers acknowledge the cyclic nature of the Universe :)
No.

Nor does it have followers.
Any evaluations of the mass of the Universe, dark matter or the amount of dark energy are actually, in our state of scientific knowledge, the same funny fairy tales like the Greek Mythology :)

I didn't know one could measure and construct falsifiable upon mythology.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
What was before the Big Bang then?
Due to the nature of the big bang and the singularity there's no possible way to know. It is physically impossible to "see" beyond that point about 14b years ago.

Is this a satisfactory answer? Most likely not. Does it make the answer less true*? No.
This does however not mean, indicate or proof that the universe - or existance in general - is cyclic.
In fact the current consensus is that the universe won't stop expanding and may lead to an event called Big Freeze.



*Albeit it is actually a bit more complicated but to explain this is beyond my knowledge of astrophysics, quantum mechanics and general relativity.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Due to the nature of the big bang and the singularity there's no possible way to know. It is physically impossible to "see" beyond that point about 14b years ago.

Is this a satisfactory answer? Most likely not. Does it make the answer less true*? No.
This does however not mean, indicate or proof that the universe - or existance in general - is cyclic.
In fact the current consensus is that the universe won't stop expanding and may lead to an event called Big Freeze.



*Albeit it is actually a bit more complicated but to explain this is beyond my knowledge of astrophysics, quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Maybe it's just better to admit that we actually know nothing :p
 
So and nothing can be ruled out...
True. But that wasn't the point. The point was that
most of it's followers acknowledge the cyclic nature of the Universe
isn't true. There might still be some who think as Big Bounce being the most likely outcome, however "most followers" actually think it's the Big Freeze.
 
In that case the joke went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over my head. About 15b light years above.