If there's no God, how did the Universe form?

[Spock]

Considering that the scientific method has mathematics underlying it, it would not explicitly or implicitly exclude mathematics in anyway shape or form. The basic axioms defined in mathematics to construct models to interpret physical realities is through the scientific method, therefore it’s innately a part of the scientific method and therefore a part of how we interpret the reality present before us. Therefore your statement is erroneous.

There is no therefore here. The fact that physival sciences use mathematics does not change the fact that the physical sciences are inductive (based upon a few basic principles) and mathematics is deductive (based upon axioms). We could create a different set of axioms, and have a different kind of mathematics. See the different types of geometry. You seem to think that mathematics is the only abstract system. Not so. Chess - for exanple - is another abstract system, and the movements of the pieces is arbitrary. All the games belong to this category. And the rules of every game are arbitrary.

What unprovable principles are these?

I already mentioned them.

This is rather vague and could also be fallacious depending on how one interprets these statements.

1. Innumerable observations do not imply a truth or a basic principle. I’m not even too sure what you mean by “basic principle” - what I instantly thought of here was the black swan argument, whereby all swans a few centuries ago were thought to be white because a black swan had never been seen, therefore the reality of the situation by innumerable observation was that there were no black swans, which is of course incorrect. As far as abstraction goes, all you need is one counter-example to disprove a supposed generality for a scenario, so your first statement is either incomplete or completely incorrect

And that is the strength of the scientific method. It is able to correct its own mistakes. The basic principles are accepted to be true, until one counter-example shows that they are not.

1. Axioms are not “arbitrarily” selected for a system, if they are selected it’s by necessity to validate something.

Above I already showed why this is incorrect. Axiomatic systems are simply mind-games. If they can be used for some other purpose, that is fine. However, there is no requirement that they should be useful.

1. This is similar to your first point, and is ambiguous.

Not ambiguous at all. You hypothesize that acid is nutritious, you drink some, and your hypothesis is refuted by reality.

1. The problem with this of course is axioms are for a given system, therefore if the axioms no longer apply to something, then it’s likely that whatever the corollaries imply don’t either, not always, but likely.

The propositions within an axiomatic system are only applicable within that system. Whether they can be applied outside the system, is irrelecant.

Furthermore, perceptions of reality is one thing, but to make propositions based on innumerable observations in a scientific way requires one to adopt a system which is formalized, for which we have formed axioms and corollaries to do so, therefore your first point is actually a subset of your first and seemingly redundant.

Nonsense. Science cannot be formalized. There are only principles and not axioms in the inductive systems. The distinction serves to clarify the difference. Science is constantly changing due to the self-correcting feedback nature of the scientific method.

Funny stuff: I keep asking to introduce an alternate method to gain knowledge about the physical reality, and there are no takers. I wonder why?

 

[Spock]

Out of topic: will be away for a few days. See you later.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

There is no therefore here. The fact that physival sciences use mathematics does not change the fact that the physical sciences are inductive (based upon a few basic principles) and mathematics is deductive (based upon axioms). We could create a different set of axioms, and have a different kind of mathematics. See the different types of geometry. You seem to think that mathematics is the only abstract system. Not so. Chess - for exanple - is another abstract system, and the movements of the pieces is arbitrary. All the games belong to this category. And the rules of every game are arbitrary.

I said no such thing, neither did I think it. This is a strawman.

I was merely pointing out that the validation of the scientific method involves mathematics. Just because conclusions drawn from science is through induction does not mean that mathematics is not a foundation in it. Physical reality is one thing, but what is the scientific method? It’s a way we intrepret that in a way that quantifies things, anything requiring quantification immediately imposes mathematical boundaries on it, hence it’s innately a part of it.

And that is the strength of the scientific method. It is able to correct its own mistakes. The basic principles are accepted to be true, until one counter-example shows that they are not.

Your first line is largely redundant, it was never a point of contention. I never said that basic principles (whatever these maybe) are not accepted to not be true. Thanks for clarifying the second point, though I think that’s exactly what I demonstrated with what I said earlier.

Above I already showed why this is incorrect. Axiomatic systems are simply mind-games. If they can be used for some other purpose, that is fine. However, there is no requirement that they should be useful. Furthermore, I never said that one should not accept truths until it is tested ad infinitum, I was pointing out that line of thinking is fallacious to accept it as an absolute

Axiomatic systems are simply mind-games? So the entire field of maths is a mind-game, perpetuated by crazy pure mathematicians for the sake of keeping themselves interested on hot summer days. One might be forced to go, “oh ho strawman” - but you can surely understand why such a comment might be laughed at. Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I gather you seem to think that science and mathematics is diametrically opposed because one uses induction, and the other deduction. That is simply the process for drawing conclusions.

Axioms are simply categories, put in the simplest words, to manipulate quantities. Considering science uses mathematics, that would immediately validate the use of mathematical axioms.

I completely agree, it was I who was thinking that you were claiming propositions validated by those 4 points as an absolute. I would never claim it as such.

The propositions within an axiomatic system are only applicable within that system. Whether they can be applied outside the system, is irrelecant.

What? I’m not too sure what you exactly mean here by “outside the system” and within an axiomatic system. Consider vector spaces, there are 10 axioms. Let’s take the 7th axiom, the associative law of multiplication by a scalar quantity. It can be mathematically proved by deduction that for any expression involving a vector, it does not matter whether you multiplied 3x4xV, or Vx3x4, or 3xVx4. Though it may seem obvious to someone who has done multiplication since grade-school, most people haven’t stopped to think why it’s true, and accepted as far as we know in our reality. This obviously directly translates to the sciences, where such calculations are carried out in physics for e.g.

Axioms are the very basic things that validate all scientific processes, period.

Nonsense. Science cannot be formalized. There are only principles and not axioms in the inductive systems. The distinction serves to clarify the difference. Science is constantly changing due to the self-correcting feedback nature of the scientific method.

Funny stuff: I keep asking to introduce an alternate method to gain knowledge about the physical reality, and there are no takers. I wonder why?

Science cannot be formalized can it? I see, that’s why we have formalized 3 distinct sciences already, and have broken down them even further into various streams of engineering and even further into other disciplines, if anything science has been standardized, formalized for thousands of years and continues to do so. By your very own argument regarding the efficaciousness of the scientific method it would only seem appropriate to formalize it.

“Science is constantly changing” is ambiguous as much as it is probably untrue, there are certain sub-disciplines which we are not sure of which are changing, not the entire system. The last time I checked, the universal law of gravity hasn’t changed, and F = -Gmm/r^2 since Newton discovered it, and has probably been F = -Gmm/r^2 billions of years before him. This does not mean it always has been that, and always will be that, but our modern engineering holds because of it, therefore it’s accepted as true until a counter-example is shown, sounds familiar? What allowed Newton to postulate and “formalized” that equation? It would probably be the mathematical axioms set out before him.

Your statement only holds for areas that are still in the grey and are being discovered still.

**Probably because there currently isn’t any? Is this even a valid question, or even merits being investigated? Why even ask it? Wouldn’t such a question only apply to people who think science and mathematics are faulty?

In all seriousness, the other exception I can think of is a philosopher investigating the possibilities of alternatives.
**

 

[Bluegoat]

Of course I accept it. I have no choice in the matter. By the same token you could ask me, “on what grounds do I accept the law of non-contradiction?”. Because to deny it would entail its acceptance. The same principle applies.

Let me ask you a question: show me what kind of thought-process can you think of, which would indicate that our senses “deceive” us? Don’t just say that they “might” transmit incorrect data. As usual, the devil is in the details. Be specific.

We are back at the Matrix. If all of our senses are fed some information, then that is the reality. The question is “how to find out if we are in a simulated, virtual reality”? There is no way. Therefore the only solution is to accept that whatever we percieve is the actual reality. If you think otherwise, give me a process, by which we can tell the two apart.

If you think that drinking acid is good sustenance, then reality will prove you wrong.

First, I need to point out that our basic assumptions all come out from empiricism. Second, I have to point out (again) that true propositions in a deductive, axiomatic system are NOT arrived in an empirical fashion. Third, show me an alternative to the empirical method in the frame of physical reality. What kind of non-scientific “evidence” do you have in mind? As before, get down into details. I am really interested.

It depends what that “immaterial reality” means. Of course I understand that physical objects have attributes, which are not “physical” (“size” or “temperature”, for example). Also that between physical objects there are relationships, which are not “physical” (“distance”, or “in front of”, for example). These are all abstractions. But abstractions are NOT ontological objects. They are contingent upon some conscious observer, to make those abstractions. There is no proposition like “the moon is in front of the sun when viewed from the planet” - unless there is someone to perceive these planets, moons and suns. Yes, I am aware that there are some philosophers who argue for the existence of “abstract objects”, like numbers, letters, etc… I don’t accept their ideas, and have very good reason to reject them.

If you leave a CD player in the forest to turn on automatically, and then leave, when the player switches on, there will be noise (vibrations of the air) but there will be no music. Or, to “borrow” from Klick and Klack (the Tappet brothers): “if a male says something in a forest, and there is no woman around, is he still wrong?”.

The axioms (or postulates) geomerty were chosen because they created a system which was applicable to reality. But the famous fifth postulate turned out to be replacable and we found two more wonderful, abstract systems, which are applicable on the surface of a sphere and a pseudo-sphere (negative curvature). Any axiomatic system is “valid”, as long as the axioms are not self-contradictory and not mutually exculsive. They do not have to reflect reality.

I’m not sure what you are asking with regard to a situation in which our senses deceive us. I don’t think they do, but then, I have no reason to think that - I have good reason to think they don’t. It isn’t back to the Matrix - it’s back to Descartes, who you brought up, not me. But Decaretes was of course not an empiricist.

But I’ve been sitting and thinking about your post for a few days here, and I’m not sure how to respond - this is why I don’t venture into apologetics often. You make an a priori assumption that only sense information is real, and won’t accept anything else as possible or valid. So what could I say to convince you otherwise? By necessity, any rational argument without empirical evidence is nonsense to you, so why make one. Any rational argument with empirical evidence is also going to be nonsense. You dismiss questions of how we know at all (which you seem to think we do, empirically) as useless and impossible to make. What more could I say - all of your basic assumptions preclude any rational argument?

 

[Tyler1234]

I recently watched a show on Discovery Channel called “Curiosity: Did God create the Universe?”
It gave one of the most compelling, and thorough arguments against God… something along the lines of a type of reaction that occurred before the existence of time that caused an explosion that created everything (including time).
(Obviously the theory was more complex than that, I just don’t remember everything that was said)
However, my biggest problem with this theory is, ‘how can anything occur before time?’
Without time, there is no time period in which this reaction can form.
Seems like a pretty simple debunking to me.
So, if confronted with that one , which I believe is the Big Bang Theory, just ask how anything can occur before time.

God bless!

 

[razredge]

I recently watched a show on Discovery Channel called “Curiosity: Did God create the Universe?”
It gave one of the most compelling, and thorough arguments against God… something along the lines of a type of reaction that occurred before the existence of time that caused an explosion that created everything (including time).
(Obviously the theory was more complex than that, I just don’t remember everything that was said)
However, my biggest problem with this theory is, ‘how can anything occur before time?’
Without time, there is no time period in which this reaction can form.
Seems like a pretty simple debunking to me.
So, if confronted with that one , which I believe is the Big Bang Theory, just ask how anything can occur before time.

God bless!

Time is a dimension of our universe which was created at the Big Bang along with space, matter & energy.

So there can be events that occur before time.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

I’m not sure what you are asking with regard to a situation in which our senses deceive us. I don’t think they do, but then, I have no reason to think that - I have good reason to think they don’t. It isn’t back to the Matrix - it’s back to Descartes, who you brought up, not me. But Decaretes was of course not an empiricist.

But I’ve been sitting and thinking about your post for a few days here, and I’m not sure how to respond - this is why I don’t venture into apologetics often. You make an a priori assumption that only sense information is real, and won’t accept anything else as possible or valid. So what could I say to convince you otherwise? By necessity, any rational argument without empirical evidence is nonsense to you, so why make one. Any rational argument with empirical evidence is also going to be nonsense. You dismiss questions of how we know at all (which you seem to think we do, empirically) as useless and impossible to make. What more could I say - all of your basic assumptions preclude any rational argument?

At first I thought I wasn’t quite understanding his statements, because it seemed to imply that deduction was some kind of unjustified irrational philosophical process, on that ground he feels that any axiomatic system, including mathematics is a precarious field (or that’s the gist of what he was saying I felt, I could be completely wrong), ironically all empirical evidence presented is often done in the form of syllogisms with assumptions (based on axioms), though not immediately obvious because it’s not a philosophical argument.

It’s hard to make a point when there’s no middle-ground, and these kind of arguments just gets increasingly futile as it seems one has to accept a rational argument for what it is without presupposing that empirical evidence ought to be the precursor for everything. It just brought to mind the is-ought problem presented by David Hume, though in his case he was referring to morality, it can easily be seen here that there’s the implicit assumption that empirical evidence ought to be one thing by the necessity of its own nature, which is an unsound argument.

Just for the record, I haven’t scrutinized in detail all his posts, but based on his earlier responses to me I did read some of his earlier posts and that is what I felt based on what he was saying, so I could have misinterpreted him.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Time is a dimension of our universe which was created at the Big Bang along with space, matter & energy.

So there can be events that occur before time.

This is a moot point, you cannot talk of events occuring before time, because an occurence is in relation to time, so if time doesn’t exist there cannot be an occurence as that requires an elapse in time.

It is similar (and redundant) to asking what’s north of the north pole.

 

[razredge]

This is a moot point, you cannot talk of events occuring before time, because an occurence is in relation to time, so if time doesn’t exist there cannot be an occurence as that requires an elapse in time.

It is similar (and redundant) to asking what’s north of the north pole.

You are arguing semantics - while it doesn’t make sense to say things like at ‘-5 seconds before time began’ there are prior states and events (perhaps not in our universe) which existed or occurred so we can talk of these events occurring ‘before the beginning of time’ (where time, is time as we see it).

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

You are arguing semantics - while it doesn’t make sense to say things like at ‘-5 seconds before time began’ there are prior states and events (perhaps not in our universe) which existed or occurred so we can talk of these events occurring ‘before the beginning of time’ (where time, is time as we see it).

I wasn’t scrutinizing that point for the sake of semantics, but because what you’re referring to is contradictory physically. You cannot have anything “prior” to time, which goes to show the ridiculousness of the situation, time is the essential and fundamental concept by which we discuss events, states and happenings. So to speak of things happening before time is something that is not physically valid.

You haven’t realized what exactly the entity called time entails, read over your statements and see if that actually makes any sense without a concept of time existing. If it doesn’t make sense to say things like -5 seconds before time, then it equally doesn’t make sense to talk of “prior states” to time, because that would essentially be -n seconds, where n is any given number “prior”

That is just the nature of time, and one of the seemingly confusing paradoxes, to which there have been new theoretical physics developed to explain or further investigate the The Big Bang theory to which there is now the Big Bounce, where it’s an infinite sequence of Big Bangs, converging to a point of singularity, exploding and happening over and over again, that way the concept of time still exists though it would be heavily manipulated and its nature change throughout.

 

[exnihilo]

I wasn’t scrutinizing that point for the sake of semantics, but because what you’re referring to is contradictory physically. You cannot have anything “prior” to time, which goes to show the ridiculousness of the situation, time is the essential and fundamental concept by which we discuss events, states and happenings. So to speak of things happening before time is something that is not physically valid.

You cannot have anything prior to time in the world of physics. But you most certainly can in the world of metaphysics.

If I understand your statement to mean that nothing at all could exists prior to time then you are saying that time popped into existence uncaused. This would exclude any fields, particles, vacuums etc existing prior to time.

The theistic idea of creation is not that God existed in time before the world but that God existed causally prior to the world and that time itself is a creation of God. I admit that it is hard to truly understand that. But to me it is much more satisfying than the alternatives. Those alternatives are at least just as hard to understand.

That is just the nature of time, and one of the seemingly confusing paradoxes, to which there have been new theoretical physics developed to explain or further investigate the The Big Bang theory to which there is now the Big Bounce, where it’s an infinite sequence of Big Bangs, converging to a point of singularity, exploding and happening over and over again, that way the concept of time still exists though it would be heavily manipulated and its nature change throughout.

The Big Bounce says time is then infinite in the past? Actual infinities are a problematic idea. Possibly infinities are certainly possible, but I think it unlikely that there are actual infinities. For the Big Bounce to be true there would have to be an infinite number of seconds in the past.

 

[Bluegoat]

It is I think confusing to people to talk about something “prior” to time, since prior is often used as a temporal designation. It causes the same difficulty some have when we talk about God being “outside” the universe. Although people find that a bit easier IME, so I often say God (or whatever) exists prior to time in the same way we talk about it being outside the universe.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

You cannot have anything prior to time in the world of physics. But you most certainly can in the world of metaphysics.

That all depends on which strand of it you subscribe to, and I’m not going to have an argument over “if” scenarios constructed by the wildest imaginations of people so they can render an argument to a way they want not having a basis in reality.

If I understand your statement to mean that nothing at all could exists prior to time then you are saying that time popped into existence uncaused. This would exclude any fields, particles, vacuums etc existing prior to time.

Not really, because if you looked at what I said, I did mention the Big Bounce to which you also replied to, so it’s clear I didn’t imply time existing uncaused if it has always existed.

The theistic idea of creation is not that God existed in time before the world but that God existed causally prior to the world and that time itself is a creation of God. I admit that it is hard to truly understand that. But to me it is much more satisfying than the alternatives. Those alternatives are at least just as hard to understand.

I’m quite familiar with the majority view of the theistic idea of creation, as is most people.

The Big Bounce says time is then infinite in the past? Actual infinities are a problematic idea. Possibly infinities are certainly possible, but I think it unlikely that there are actual infinities. For the Big Bounce to be true there would have to be an infinite number of seconds in the past.

Why is it problematic? OK, you say it is possible but you think it unlikely, I do not mean to be rude at all, and that is not my intention, but just because you think it unlikely does not mean it is not so, and I am no expert or some proponent of The Big Bounce theory but based on what I’ve read and seen some documentaries on, it doesn’t seem unfeasible to me especially with the developing theoretical physics around it.

Furthermore, if actual infinities are problematic; isn’t God infinite?

I’m not saying that this is actually how the world was created, for all anyone knows, time could have been indeed created at the moment of the Big Bang, but this does not mean you can allow people to let loose and talk of “prior” events completely ignoring what the meaning of time implies. “Prior” to time would imply that there is another axis of time to which our time is currently operating in and seems redundant, and is not proven nor have any kind of theoretical backing to it.

 

[Bluegoat]

That all depends on which strand of it you subscribe to, and I’m not going to have an argument over “if” scenarios constructed by the wildest imaginations of people so they can render an argument to a way they want not having a basis in reality.

Not really, because if you looked at what I said, I did mention the Big Bounce to which you also replied to, so it’s clear I didn’t imply time existing uncaused if it has always existed.

I’m quite familiar with the majority view of the theistic idea of creation, as is most people.

Why is it problematic? OK, you say it is possible but you think it unlikely, I do not mean to be rude at all, and that is not my intention, but just because you think it unlikely does not mean it is not so, and I am no expert or some proponent of The Big Bounce theory but based on what I’ve read and seen some documentaries on, it doesn’t seem unfeasible to me especially with the developing theoretical physics around it.

Furthermore, if actual infinities are problematic; isn’t God infinite?

I’m not saying that this is actually how the world was created, for all anyone knows, time could have been indeed created at the moment of the Big Bang, but this does not mean you can allow people to let loose and talk of “prior” events completely ignoring what the meaning of time implies. “Prior” to time would imply that there is another axis of time to which our time is currently operating in and seems redundant, and is not proven nor have any kind of theoretical backing to it.

Remember though that prior doesn’t have to be a temporal designation. Something can be logically prior.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Remember though that prior doesn’t have to be a temporal designation. Something can be logically prior.

That would still have time tied to it, though before I jump the gun, can you give me an example of what you’re referring to?

 

[Bluegoat]

That would still have time tied to it, though before I jump the gun, can you give me an example of what you’re referring to?

No it wouldn’t. We tend to feel that it would, because in practice causation almost always works that way in the universe, which is where we live. In the universe, only abstractions can have logical priority without temporal priority.

As for an example (not mine): Sunrise and the light of day happen at the same time, but the light is caused by the sunrise, logically speaking. Or, a much better example would be God’s creation of the angels, or even the Trinity.

There might be examples of this in math as well, I’m not sure.

 

[Pieman333272]

What do atheists usually say?

Something else to address:
Is it even possible for the Universe to have always existed?

I haven’t read any of the thread besides this, so I may be redundant, or this combination of ideas may have already been refuted, but I’ve come to realize that the a transcendent, eternal, immaterial creator of the Universe is not only the best explanation of the Universe, but the only one. My argument is not built on scientific ignorance or certain dubious definitions, if we define the universe simply as “all space, matter, energy, and time” this argument works fine. Here it is:

1. Nothing can come from nothing
2. The Universe cannot have always existed (there cannot always have been something)
3. Therefore, there had to be something non-spatial, non-material, non-energetic, and non-temporal to bring the universe forth from nothing (God did not create the Universe FROM nothing, but he made the universe appear where there was nothing - I advise my friend’s post here on this).

Those 2 simple Metaphysical ideas provide irrefutable proof for a Creator’s existence. Unless anybody can refute them. (good luck there)

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

I haven’t read any of the thread besides this, so I may be redundant, or this combination of ideas may have already been refuted, but I’ve come to realize that the a transcendent, eternal, immaterial creator of the Universe is not only the best explanation of the Universe, but the only one. My argument is not built on scientific ignorance or certain dubious definitions, if we define the universe simply as “all space, matter, energy, and time” this argument works fine. Here it is:

1. Nothing can come from nothing
2. The Universe cannot have always existed (there cannot always have been something)
3. Therefore, there had to be something non-spatial, non-material, non-energetic, and non-temporal to bring the universe forth from nothing (God did not create the Universe FROM nothing, but he made the universe appear where there was nothing - I advise my friend’s post here on this).

Those 2 simple Metaphysical ideas provide irrefutable proof for a Creator’s existence. Unless anybody can refute them. (good luck there)

Everyone bow down to Pieman, here is the philosopher that will lead us to eternal salvation and has answered the biggest question plaguing all mankind in 2 minutes by the use of his enormous intellect.

There’s not even anything here in this post even worth bothering it, your propositions have been in debate for the last few millenia and before anyone can provide irrefutable proof to counter those propositions you must first prove your first two premises before the conclusion is accepted.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

No it wouldn’t. We tend to feel that it would, because in practice causation almost always works that way in the universe, which is where we live. In the universe, only abstractions can have logical priority without temporal priority.

As for an example (not mine): Sunrise and the light of day happen at the same time, but the light is caused by the sunrise, logically speaking. Or, a much better example would be God’s creation of the angels, or even the Trinity.

There might be examples of this in math as well, I’m not sure.

I’m not too sure I entirely understand what you refer to here, I cannot really wrap my head around it, I am not saying it doesn’t make sense, but I can’t really form a link there.

From what I gather though, light isn’t caused by the sunrise. Sunrise is something of perception, the sun is always there, but at a certain point in time we see it and therefore we see the light too, but it’s not so much that they happen at the same time, the sun emanates light by its very nature, so no, light isn’t caused by the sunrise, we just happen to see it because of the sunrise. We can’t see it prior to the sunrise doesn’t mean it wasn’t already caused.

Though I can’t really see the link eitherway between logically prior vs temporally prior, is there even such a thing?

 

[Pieman333272]

Everyone bow down to Pieman, here is the philosopher that will lead us to eternal salvation and has answered the biggest question plaguing all mankind in 2 minutes by the use of his enormous intellect.

Yeah, because sarcasm is a great way of signifying you are part of the more intelligent, respectful group.

And besides, contrary to what your ego might believe, I didn’t make up this argument as I went along. I’ve been thinking about how the need for a beginning of the universe necessitates a creator and, after some thought, realized the answer was right under my nose, in the proposition I read almost every time I’m on this forum! “Only Nothing can come from Nothing”.

There’s not even anything here in this post even worth bothering it, your propositions have been in debate for the last few millenia and before anyone can provide irrefutable proof to counter those propositions you must first prove your first two premises before the conclusion is accepted.

Well, nothing comes from nothing, aside from being common logic, is proved by mathematics; in a positive-exclusive system (as our universe is) you cannot get anything from zero without adding something to it (something + nothing). But aside from that, I think it is simply the burden of the skeptic to demonstrate that something can come out of true nothingness.

As for the Universe always existing, (and I do admit I did not create this defense, I actually heard it from another user here), this is impossible because the universe always existing would imply (or prove) an infinite past. However, an infinite past can never reach this point in time, the “present”. It would not reach the Big Bang, it would not reach your or my birth, it would not reach me typing this paragraph. Try to count from negative infinity to one by ones. It cannot be done! Just as well, we cannot get from -OO BC to 2011 AD just by time passing. Time must have a starting point!

And if you dispute my definition of “universe” (in spite of the fact that that definition is probably the most atheist-friendly on the market), you can take it up with the leading cosmologists and philosophers of the past >50 years.