Infinite universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaygerbs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jaygerbs

Guest
Hey apologist!

I want to say this site is great and is helping me on my never ending search for Truth.

I’m starting at base-one with God. I for one find the cosmological proof a very, very convincing argument for the existence of God but have ran into a problem. Whos to say that the universe could not have always existed?

Something has had to have been eternal. Either God or the universe. But why can’t it be the universe? I mean, I know the “big bang” says that the universe began to exist, but, then again the universe could have actually existed and simply had a spark in it and expanded in size and continued to expand in size.

If the universe had a “spark” in it its quite possible, since we have assumed that the universe is self existing we can just as easily assume that particles are present inside the universe. After the “spark” the universe continued and has continued to expand.

Therefore, lets not use modern science to determine that the universe has always existed, but rather philosophically.

Well, I thank all you apologist for spreading the Truth.
Code: 
                                     God bless,
                                          Jayson
 
The only reason you exist is because something before you existed, namely your parents. All the way back to Adam and Eve, something must have given them existance because unless something is eternal, aka God, it owes its existance to something else.

The universe is a material object that owes its existance to something, either to semething else that was material or something that doesn’t rely on something for its existance. THe only thing I can think of that has this quality is God.

Hope this helps
Bene
 
A very good reply. Makes logical sense. But, philsophically, and metaphyscially, isn’t an infinite universe possible? Where did Adam and Eve get there existense?

Granted, I do find it hard to believe that random incognitive atoms bouncing around could ever make a cognitive being. But, metaphysically, if the universe has always existed, it must have had whatever it needs to always exist. It must be self-sustaining, just like God is.

But, if we are talking strictly metaphysically, couldn’t it be possible?
 
Are we trying to say that the universe is infinite? eternal?

If the universe always existed, that would mean that it shared the same statis as God. If God did not create it who did? And if it was never created, it would be eternal and therefore a sort of god in its own right.

Umm…Does this make sense?

Bene
 
Yes yes. perfect sense. I’m sorry. I suppose I was a bit ambigous. Eternal universe is probably a more appropriate title. Supposing the universe is infinite therefore God unecessary. I guess thats what we are trying to disprove.
 
Well then, if the universe is eternal, and God non-existant, then we will have to try to explain away other things that are dependant upon a Creator. Where did the soul come from? Is there a purpose? Why are we inclined towards natural law, if we don’t have a created soul?

But, if you really want to delve into the world of “How do we prove God exists?” I would suggest reading the works of St. Thomas Aquinas. He proves beautifully that through reasoning, one can logically prove that there is a God.

My own shortcomings on this topic will not suffice to prove it to you. Sorry

Bene
 
If I understand you, you are saying for sake of argument let us ignore the vast evidence for the big bang (which certainly points to a universe which had a beginning)?

OK, so we have either an eternal universe, or an eternal God? The problem I have with the eternal universe is, why does it happen to be the exact kind of universe that caused life to come into existence, and in particular human life? Now if the universe is eternal then it had only one chance to be exactly the right sort of universe. If any one of a large number of constants or properties were off by a little bit, we wouldn’t be here. If there was no intelligence in the design of this one and only universe, we can only appeal to a very, very large dose of luck that we are here at all. That is a very unsatisfying explanation. But if there was intelligence in the design of this universe then there is no luck at all, for it is all a matter of intentional design.

A way I have of thinking about this is that if one does not believe in God then one has to believe in a nearly infinite number of improbable, unexplainable things (all the things that had to be just right to get us where we are today). But if one believes in God then one only has to believe in one unexplainable thing (I don’t know if “improbable” would apply in this case): that exists.

Really, I think it makes more sense to believe one unexplainable thing than a near-infinite number of unexplainable things.
 
You speak some good truths. We would have to suppose that incognitive beings, somehow, someway, produced cognition. Highly improbable. That is very good proof for God. But, the problem still exist, is an infinite universe possible, even if humans never came to be, could an infinite uinverse still have existed?

I understand your frustration with your inability to know. I have never known either thats why I am coming here for help.

I greatly appreciate your reasoning with me and I’m glad that you and I can come to the same conclusion that God exist. But the eternal universe question will have to be answered by someone wiser than us.

Thanks again!
 
Vocimike, very true.

You understood my premises for this discussion. And, strictly speaking, the amount of luck at a “one shot” universe having existed on its own without God and having all the correct universal laws and gravitational forces needed to create and sustain life is highly improbable(yes, I would grant the word improbable)

When one chooses not to believe in God, they are forced to believe in outrageous odds.

Thanks for contributing.
 
40.png
jaygerbs:
Yes yes. perfect sense. I’m sorry. I suppose I was a bit ambigous. Eternal universe is probably a more appropriate title. Supposing the universe is infinite therefore God unecessary. I guess thats what we are trying to disprove.
Click to expand...

But: God is not disproved, even if the universe is eternal - because that idea assumes that God’s only reason for existing, is to function as the cause of other things. IOW, it assumes that God exists only as an explanation.​

And that is what is wrong with the every form of the idea of the “god of the gaps” - God ceases to be needed, because the gap in our knowledge has been filled; he ceases to function as an explanation. The mistake is catastrophic, because it levels God and creatures; so it is only one step to thinking about God as though He were a creature, a mere godling. So small a god is no God at all. God is like none of His creatures - all of His creatures have some likeness to Him. The “god of the gaps” idea is scarcely better than atheism.

God is, because God is 🙂 - God is not an explanation for things we can’t explain otherwise. The universe needs a reason - God needs nothing, not even a reason to exist. If the universe were eternal, God would be still be God. To suggest otherwise, is like suggesting that we exist only so that we can wear shirts, so that there can be pockets in those shirts in which biros can be put. Only a very conceited biro would imagine that it was the reason for the existence of shirts and their wearers - yet we make this mistake often.

No one is so insane as to suggest that the office-worker exists for the sake of the biro in the pocket of his shirt - but the idea that God exists for the sake of the universe makes exactly this blunder.

Everything not God, needs God - God, who is infinitely Blessed and infinitely Living and infinitely Real, needs none of His creatures at all. The universe was completely unnecessary , and is still completely unnecessary - so God created it, from no reason but Love. (There is no reason for God to anything - because there is no standard by which God is judged; how can the Standard for all creatures have a standard by which to be judged ?) Love always seeks the best for the one who is loved; it always spreads itself - like fire, it increases by being active. God had no universe to love, so He invented one - not to increase in love: He can’t, because He is nothing but Infinite Love; but so that non-existing things might exist, and, in their measure, become like Him. But if they were to cease to be - God would be unchanged. ##
 
40.png
jaygerbs:
Hey apologist!

I want to say this site is great and is helping me on my never ending search for Truth.

I’m starting at base-one with God. I for one find the cosmological proof a very, very convincing argument for the existence of God but have ran into a problem. Whos to say that the universe could not have always existed?
Click to expand...
It’s the problem of completing an infinitely long task:

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#6
 
40.png
jaygerbs:
I for one find the cosmological proof a very, very convincing argument for the existence of God but have ran into a problem. Whos to say that the universe could not have always existed?
Click to expand...
Science and philosophy…both agree on this issue, actually.
40.png
jaygerbs:
Something has had to have been eternal. Either God or the universe. But why can’t it be the universe?
Click to expand...
Because the universe is an existing thing.

There are existing things, and then there is existence itself…existence is an act (verb). An existing thing (such as the universe) cannot cause it’s own existence. God is not an existing thing…He is existence itself. The only thing that is one, immutable, and eternal is existence.
 
According to the Big Bang theory, the universe is about ten billion years old and is finite in size, roughly ten billion light years across. It all started ten billion years ago with a big bang The repulsive force counter to gravity and driving galaxies apart could be given by either the cosmological constant of Einstein or the repulsive force exerted by the vacuum energy of empty space.
 
Good morning everyone!

yes, Defide, I have heard of Kalam’s argument and find it very solid and strong. But, as Kreeft points out, there are philosohical ideas that allow infinite anythings. And Rebeeca I’ve yet to check out your website but will be sure to do so later.

I think we all have come to the conclusion that God is necessary and exist, but personally, I think it is best for me to check out the reasons why some believe on philosophical levels that infinity is possible.

Thanks for all the help!

God bless!
 
There is no necessary reason why the universe could not extend infinitely back in time and infinitely forward into the future. Neither is there any necessary reason that it could not be infinitely extended in space.

(The scientific evidence does not support that being the case, since the big bang seems to posit a temporal beginning, and the curvature of space seems to show that the universe is probably curved back in on itself into a sphere, which while it has no spatial ending point, is not spatially infinite.)

But even if the universe extended infinitely forward and backward in time, I would not call it eternal. Philosophically, and theologically, speaking, eternity is the quality of having no extension in time whatsoever, because an eternal being possesses all of its being simultaneously, not in a series of events.

God has no extension in time, and no extension in space.
Even if the universe–matter/energy–had an infinite extension in both time and space, that would not argue against the existence of God, but for Him, since only an infinitely powerful Creator could create such a universe.

I would also point out that the universe cannot contain within itself sufficient reason for its own existence. It is a contingent being. It might not have been. Only God is a non-contingent Being.
 
40.png
jaygerbs:
Good morning everyone!

yes, Defide, I have heard of Kalam’s argument and find it very solid and strong.!
Click to expand...
Does that mean that you see why the universe cannot be infinitely old?

It’s not so much the Kalam argument itself that was most pertinent, but Kreeft’s discussion of why an infinite task in time cannot be completed (otherwise, it’d wouldn’t be boundless).
 
I would also point out that the universe cannot contain within itself sufficient reason for its own existence. It is a contingent being. It might not have been. Only God is a non-contingent Being.
Click to expand...
True, even a universe that had an infinite duration in time…or a finite duration in time that curved back on itself at one or both ends…it still does not contain sufficient reason for its own existence and still would need a Necessary Being as the Absolute foundation of its existence. The angels, in their way, exist aeviternally…but they are still contingent beings.
 
Wow!

Thanks Batteddy. I completely overlooked that line when it was orignally typed. I guess I have been asking the wrong questions. The universe, if it truly is contingent, then there must be a necessary Being, which is God.

Off to check this out
 
40.png
JimG:
God has no extension in time, and no extension in space.
.
Click to expand...
That is remarkable because Jesus is God and yet He had an extension in time 2000 years ago and He had an extension in space on the Cross?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top