The Universe is not eternal - Stephen Hawking

  • Thread starter Thread starter afungusamongus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Who cares if it’s not eternal, maybe that was God’s intention. After all, he can just create another. Maybe that’s what Jesus meant when he said that heaven and earth will pass away, and become anew.
 
Define the universe. God is my universe and whatever he asks or demands of me I shall do it- regardless of the physical plane I inhabit, God is eternal and therefore my universe is eternal.

As for this physical realm of existence, its eternity is of little importance to me- we all move on from it eventually. But Hawking is a tremendously intelligent man, who is a paragon to us all that we can overcome our disabilities, and if he says something then I’d take it into serious consideration, if not out of respect alone. Besides, I’m not clever enough to come up with my own theories on this nor am I rich enough to fund such a venture. So I’m content in following the ideas of those who I know are better than me in this regard.
 
People should care if the universe is eternal or not because if it is not it goes a long way in proving God exist.

Pretty important me thinks.
 
afungusamongus said:
People should care if it is eternal or not because if it is not it goes a long way in proving God exist.

Pretty important me thinks.
Click to expand...
Important, yes, but do you think that unless a creation of God is eternal that God would not be eternal? If we believe there was a moment of creation, it is not logical then to conclude that God existed before such a moment?
 
If we believe there was a moment of creation, it is not logical then to conclude that God existed before such a moment?
Click to expand...
Yes it is. That is what I believe. That is the whole crux of the argument if the universe has a beginning it needs a cause and this cause would need to have existed before the universe existed ie immaterial (Or not bound by the physical universe).

I do hope I’m not being misunderstood
 
afungusamongus said:
It seems that for a while now the people who want to reject the Cosmological argument for Gods existence had two outs for their rejection. Either hold to a eternal universe or believe that things can come into being uncaused.
Click to expand...
Or simply honestly say that we don’t know how the universe came into being but that there’s insufficient evidence to think that a disembodied intelligence did it.
 
NonServiam said:
Or simply honestly say that we don’t know how the universe came into being but that there’s insufficient evidence to think that a disembodied intelligence did it.
Click to expand...
But, there’s plenty of evidence; it’s all over these fora. But, you reject it. 😉

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
And that “cause” would be what?

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Don’t know. And don’t need to know either. But this does not preclude the fact that some theories are clearly less realistic than others.
 
NonServiam said:
Or simply honestly say that we don’t know how the universe came into being but that there’s insufficient evidence to think that a disembodied intelligence did it.
Click to expand...
Is there any evidence that an unintelligent force did it? :confused:

The sceptic David Hume remarked that the cause should be proportioned to the effect but he didn’t take into account the inadequacy of deriving rational, purposeful persons from irrational, purposeless particles…
 
When I’m not on the net the only time I hear of Stephen Hawking is when people are talking casual physics around the water cooler, and even then there are very specific people that talk about it. But I’ve seen a lot of threads on what Hawking says around here. So I’m curious, does his name or his words really come up frequently when you are having a religious discussion in real life?
 
afungusamongus said:
hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

It seems that for a while now the people who want to reject the Cosmological argument for Gods existence had two outs for their rejection. Either hold to a eternal universe or believe that things can come into being uncaused.

Seems like one of those objections has now been dis-proven by science. Atheist where sure that the 20th century would bring us to a point where we could once and for all dismiss these primitive fantasies.

That would have been true except for the curious fact that scientist keep on discovering evidence for Christianity. Weird how Mr. Hawkings has inadvertently done so much to aid the Christian message.

DISCUSS!
Click to expand...
Cosmology only supports a finite temporal past, or that our timeline did indeed have a beginning. The problem for theists, though, is that they don’t believe that causality and time are married. If God created the big bang and thus time, then there’s an event in our past which does not have a location in time (the creation of time).

Thus the theist is committed to accepting that our temporal past is at least one event shorter than our causal past. If this is the case, though, there’s no reason to believe that our causal past is finite. Therefore the cosmological evidence does not actually help nor hinder the cosmological argument.

I have never seen a good philosophical argument that tried to demonstrate that our causal past had to be finite, and until I see one the kalam cosmological argument is dead.
 
Relinquish said:
Cosmology only supports a finite temporal past, or that our timeline did indeed have a beginning. The problem for theists, though, is that they don’t believe that causality and time are married. If God created the big bang and thus time, then there’s an event in our past which does not have a location in time (the creation of time).

Thus the theist is committed to accepting that our temporal past is at least one event shorter than our causal past. If this is the case, though, there’s no reason to believe that our causal past is finite. Therefore the cosmological evidence does not actually help nor hinder the cosmological argument.

I have never seen a good philosophical argument that tried to demonstrate that our causal past had to be finite, and until I see one the kalam cosmological argument is dead.
Click to expand...
Kalam=pwned
 
tdgesq said:
First, not all variations of the Cosmological Argument demand a prior cause, including Kalam.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how the requirements of other cosmological arguments is relevant to the kalam’s. Also, depending on what ‘prior cause’ refers to, I think all kalam’s do.
All that is necessary is a concurrent or simultaneous cause. In other words, there is no time that elapses between cause and effect; between the creative act and the existence of the universe.
Click to expand...
Relinquish’s claim was just that on theism there is at least one causal event outside of our timeline.

So, how does saying that there is no time between the cause and the effect address that?

Well, the only way it could rebut this claim is if it showed that no event occurs outside of our timeline.

This would amount to saying that God created time in time.
Second, even if you were correct, the non-theist would need to set forth a metaphysic to explain how a “prior cause” can exist without time and - more to the point - how an infinite number of “prior causes” outside of time could exist.
Click to expand...
The non-theist isn’t the one saying time and causality are divorced. The burden to provide a metaphysics of this is on the theist who is making the claim.
Finally, it is very relevant that the cosmological evidence supports a temporal past. It means that the universe began to exist, and that means there is some true account of the cause of its existence.
Click to expand...
To say that because the universe began to exist, it needs a cause is to affirm that the cause is outside of time, which is exactly what Relinquish was accusing the theist of affirming.
That is the starting point of philosophical inquiry into the matter. While non-theists have little to nothing to offer in the way of explanation, theists do.
Click to expand...
At best, the atheist and theist hypothesis balance on their explanations of the universe, although I think it’s more improbable on theism than on atheism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top