A
aux1
Guest
The universe has a finite age, i.e. it had a beginning: astro.berkeley.edu/~dperley/univage/univage.html
Also, the fact that the universe had a beginning does not necessarily imply that it was created.
- Status
Also, the fact that the universe had a beginning does not necessarily imply that it was created.
A
aux1
Guest
You night want to consider that if you wanted to communicate modern cosmology to iron age people, you’d have to write a really dumbed down version…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Einstein originally thought the universe was eternal. However, the Big Bang put a kink in his thinking.
Sorry, Albert.
It’s not science at all to suppose an eternal universe so that you don’t have to think about God.
Finally Einstein began to speak of god, but more so as Mind rather than Person.
Sorry, Albert.
It’s not science at all to suppose an eternal universe so that you don’t have to think about God.
Finally Einstein began to speak of god, but more so as Mind rather than Person.
B
buffalo
Guest
Hmmm - is your claim Adam and Eve had a lower IQ? Do you have a source?
A
aux1
Guest
No, I’m just saying that you cannot explain (for example) stellar nucleosynthesis to someone who doesn’t know the concept of an atom
E
empther
Guest
Sure it does!
- the universe couldn’t create itself. If there was once nothing there would still be nothing.
- atheists say the universe’s beginning was an accident, but for an accident to happen there must be something to undergo an accident
- atheists say the universe’s beginning was by chance, but for a chance to happen there must be something to undergo a chance
- atheists say the universe’s beginning was a quantum effect, but for a quantum effect to happen there must be something to undergo a quantum effect
meltzerboy
New member
Therefore, the universe has no beginning or there is a G-d who created the universe. Or even both, or neither. That is, our minds simply cannot understand the (to us) illogical concept of an eternal universe. Atheists (and deists) might claim it is just as impossible, and illogical, for our minds to grasp the idea of an eternal G-d who Himself had no creation.Sure it does!
- the universe couldn’t create itself. If there was once nothing there would still be nothing.
- atheists say the universe’s beginning was an accident, but for an accident to happen there must be something to undergo an accident
- atheists say the universe’s beginning was by chance, but for a chance to happen there must be something to undergo a chance
- atheists say the universe’s beginning was a quantum effect, but for a quantum effect to happen there must be something to undergo a quantum effect
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
meltzerboy
**
Atheists (and deists) might claim it is just as impossible, and illogical, for our minds to grasp the idea of an eternal G-d who Himself had no creation. **
I think it is neither impossible nor illogical to imagine such a God. Certainly not illogical in the sense of trying to conceptualize a square circle.
After all, if Einstein could at one time assume (as he did before the discovery of the Big Bang) that the universe is infinite and eternal, what’s so impossible about imagining a God with the same qualities?
**
Atheists (and deists) might claim it is just as impossible, and illogical, for our minds to grasp the idea of an eternal G-d who Himself had no creation. **
I think it is neither impossible nor illogical to imagine such a God. Certainly not illogical in the sense of trying to conceptualize a square circle.
After all, if Einstein could at one time assume (as he did before the discovery of the Big Bang) that the universe is infinite and eternal, what’s so impossible about imagining a God with the same qualities?
E
empther
Guest
Only if they forget as they always do that:
- the universe changes and every change happened a finite time ago, therefore the universe can’t be eternal
- God is unchanging and therefore timeless. Also, he is the necessary being and didn’t need to be created.
B
buffalo
Guest
You only know about them because someone told you they exist.No, I’m just saying that you cannot explain (for example) stellar nucleosynthesis to someone who doesn’t know the concept of an atom
Now Adam and Eve had the gift of infused knowledge. We don’t know exactly what that was, and the extent, but it is possible they knew even much more than that.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Are you familiar with Thomas Aquinas, the famous Catholic Theologian/Philosopher of the thirteenth century? It was his opinion that one could not prove that the universe had an actual beginning in time, one could only know that it did from faith. Of course many did not agree with him.Why must the universe have a beginning? Why can not we assign an infinite time to the past, admitting the eternity of the universe, that it has not been created but has always existed? Give me good arguments for such questioning, without entering a religious merit by saying something like “the universe must have a beginning because God created it.” I wish that this was the consequence of the argument, and not the cause itself, because it does not satisfy my question. We can not answer everything with faith because we have also the reason and we risk falling into the “God of the gaps”. I would like an answer strictly rational and within the philosophy.
Certainly no one has come up with a solid proof either way, irrespective of all the noise being given by persons of faith to the implications of the " Big Bang."
My personal opinion, for whatever that is worth, is that it is more reasonable to conclude that the universe had a beginning in time. Why ? We live in a limited, contingent universe. That which is contingent and limited must be caused by that which is not contingent and limited ( God ). Now it is more reasonable to assume that God created the universe in time rather than he was eternally creating it. It seems to detract from the Essence of the Perfect, Necessary Being of God to say that he must be eternally creating a contingent, limilted universe. Such a case would seem to cramp the Free Will of God and to make him less free.
I realize this is not a proof. But there will be no proof either way. All we can do, without appealing to Faith, is to make a judgment as to what is most reasonable. Linus2nd
C
Colmeia
Guest
Thanks all for the good answers you gave me. I can see now some explanations better than what I already had. It’ll take me a little reading and researching on these topics. I am pleased with what was discussed here, thank you all brothers. May we continue to share our knowledge so that our apologetics can be, every day, better. May we know the fullness of truth, faith and reason. Peace and good!
J
jimmy
Guest
Physicists say it is about 15.3 billion years old, but puting that aside there is the question of infinite regress. If we start from the present and move back in time continually going back a little further every state of the universe proceeds from a previous state. If we assume there was no beginning, then our procession through the stages of the universe will be infinite, without ever reaching a first cause in the chain of events. There would ultimately be no cause of anything. In the end we are forced to admit that everything just happens because it does.Why must the universe have a beginning? Why can not we assign an infinite time to the past, admitting the eternity of the universe, that it has not been created but has always existed? Give me good arguments for such questioning, without entering a religious merit by saying something like “the universe must have a beginning because God created it.” I wish that this was the consequence of the argument, and not the cause itself, because it does not satisfy my question. We can not answer everything with faith because we have also the reason and we risk falling into the “God of the gaps”. I would like an answer strictly rational and within the philosophy.
C
Classicist
Guest
Friend, remember that time is only a measurement of changes in space. Eternity, then, must naturally be a state of being without matter. The moment something is measurable it cannot be eternal, for spacial things are always temporal (they must be, for they always relate to each other, and they relate to each other differently at different times).
As this material, energetic Universe is obviously changing constantly, it cannot be the basis or foundation for* its own existence*. It’s just clear from the way things are, without presupposing the existence of God. There can only be a non-spatiotemporal Being from which this temporal, spatial Cosmos receives its existence.
As this material, energetic Universe is obviously changing constantly, it cannot be the basis or foundation for* its own existence*. It’s just clear from the way things are, without presupposing the existence of God. There can only be a non-spatiotemporal Being from which this temporal, spatial Cosmos receives its existence.
C
Colmeia
Guest
I took a brief look at what is written there. Maybe I need a more mathematical rigor than I have now. Are you a physicist or something? What level of depth you think is necessary to understand this theory? Because I have a good read in areas of history, philosophy and logic, but neither came to study calculus. I only know some notions of differentiation and integration, but never moved forward beyond that. About complex numbers, I have a slight idea of what they are. My area of study is the biomedical, then all that kind of other thing I read on my own. If you think I do need, in fact, a greater mathematical rigor, what kind of procedure you recommend me to delve into this study until this goal is reached? For example books etc.
P
polytropos
Guest
I would expect the universe to be eternal because matter and energy are eternal. The Greeks felt that matter was corrupt because the physical - bodies, trees, constructed objects - tend to fall apart, but this is actually pretty flawed. I find little to suggest that all the matter and energy in the universe ever did “not exist.”
There is one issue I can think of, however. The universe constantly becomes more disordered according to entropy. At some point in the past, then, the universe must have been completely ordered. This would suggest that different types of matter were separated and that the entire universe was at a temperature of absolute zero. All energy would have to be potential; no energy could have been kinetic (heat) since that is a form of disorder. This is slightly problematic, I think, because a state of complete order is impossible to imagine. In particular, all matter is attracted to other matter by gravity, which causes acceleration. If the universe is eternal, we should be able to keep going backwards and observe progressively more ordered states. But those forces would always be present and would be causing movement and kinetic energy through the dispersal of gravitational potential energy.
I don’t really know if this is a valid concern. Based on my knowledge of physics and chemistry, it might be. But I’m not a theoretical physicist. It is also highly probable that measure of disorder, as we go back, simply approaches 0 but never actually reaches it. Again, I am not sure and would hesitate to make a definitive claim.
There is one issue I can think of, however. The universe constantly becomes more disordered according to entropy. At some point in the past, then, the universe must have been completely ordered. This would suggest that different types of matter were separated and that the entire universe was at a temperature of absolute zero. All energy would have to be potential; no energy could have been kinetic (heat) since that is a form of disorder. This is slightly problematic, I think, because a state of complete order is impossible to imagine. In particular, all matter is attracted to other matter by gravity, which causes acceleration. If the universe is eternal, we should be able to keep going backwards and observe progressively more ordered states. But those forces would always be present and would be causing movement and kinetic energy through the dispersal of gravitational potential energy.
I don’t really know if this is a valid concern. Based on my knowledge of physics and chemistry, it might be. But I’m not a theoretical physicist. It is also highly probable that measure of disorder, as we go back, simply approaches 0 but never actually reaches it. Again, I am not sure and would hesitate to make a definitive claim.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
The universe can be eternal. It’s not metaphysically impossible.
The problem is that a past-eternal universe is gonzo metaphysics and requires an atheology which becomes more of a philosophical laughing stock than anything about God which atheists think needs mocking.
Example - In a past-eternal universe, so much ‘‘time’’ has already elapsed (an infinity of events,) that a single event in 2013 will not be unique, but instead will have already happened over and over and over and over ad infinitum in the past. In an infinite past, there is an infinite amount of time for people to repeat stuff and invent stuff and learn stuff. It’s Groundhog Day over and over and over and eventually Bill Murray has done everything an infinite number of times. So how long does it take him to invent a time machine and travel to 2013 to let us know that we are wasting our time thinking that the universe will come to an end - because it wont.
Atheists mock The Eternal God with divine, personal free will who can create and destroy but their alternative uncaused, past-eternal universe/multiverse is worse than Camusian absurdity.
The problem is that a past-eternal universe is gonzo metaphysics and requires an atheology which becomes more of a philosophical laughing stock than anything about God which atheists think needs mocking.
Example - In a past-eternal universe, so much ‘‘time’’ has already elapsed (an infinity of events,) that a single event in 2013 will not be unique, but instead will have already happened over and over and over and over ad infinitum in the past. In an infinite past, there is an infinite amount of time for people to repeat stuff and invent stuff and learn stuff. It’s Groundhog Day over and over and over and eventually Bill Murray has done everything an infinite number of times. So how long does it take him to invent a time machine and travel to 2013 to let us know that we are wasting our time thinking that the universe will come to an end - because it wont.
Atheists mock The Eternal God with divine, personal free will who can create and destroy but their alternative uncaused, past-eternal universe/multiverse is worse than Camusian absurdity.
C
Colmeia
Guest
What is the real problem on the existence of multiverses? I’ve read about it in some philosophers, notably Nietzsche, and also coming from some scientists, who believe that the universe could be an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. This should be through the Big Bang and the Big Crunch. But my physical considerations are almost nil, because I do not have that depth, to know I can only mention the theories. What is the real absurdity appointed by Camus? He wanted to note quoting the Sisyphus myth that such considerations are just eternal loss of time or sense or is there something beyond that? I do not know if that’s what the author of the text meant, but it was at least what I understand. If I’m wrong, what is the point on Camusian absurdity?
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
Surely the problem is that in an infinite number of possible/probable worlds, at least one of them has to have souls, angels, demons, miracles, etc. And at least one of them will be called Heaven and be much bigger than this universe in which we dwell.
So instead of being a means of overcoming the fine-tuning scenario, multiverse theories simply add to the likelihood of a thesitic//afterlife.
Yes, like a pendulum. A perpetual motion machine. A brute ‘‘thing’’ that just IS what it is.
It’s an interesting idea for the first one or two cycles of expansion/contraction but after a while one gets bored watching the meaningless pendulum swing back and forth. And it still doesnt address the issue… when the universe is expanding, into WHAT is it expanding?
Unfortunately, the really smart people dont seem to be able to achieve a working model of such a theory. The ‘‘pendulum’’ - on its upswing eventually comes to a stop before the downswing in reverse. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin seems to conclude that this model breaks down at that point and becomes inexplicable and that even a multiverse scenario must have had a theoretical beginning. This then leads to the Kalam style questions about uncaused, spontaneous beginnings of something - in this case, a pendulum which begins to move in an upward or downward swing.
I think the main problems with an uncaused, past-eternal universe are two-fold.
- Inevitable repetition of an event over and over eventually makes it statistically predictable. And if the universe has always existed, its inhabitants have had more than enough time to work out a way of travelling through time to come here (2013) and explain how and why the universe is eternal. They would be able to use trial and error to eventually work out ‘‘stuff’’
Maybe we are the first inhabitants to become aware that the universe is past-eternal and we are the first ones who are going to try and send a message to future inhabitants…?
No wait! We cant be the first. The universe has always existed backwards into infinity and everything that has happened has happened an infinite number of times…And yet we find no ‘‘fossil records’’ of past civilizations trying to alert us that the universe has always existed.
- The theory of an uncaused, past-eternal universe is an antithesis to ‘‘the meaning of life’’ and the idea of the ‘‘human spirit.’’ Atheist physicist Brian Cox says finding out where we came from is the most important question facing humanity. But a past-eternal, uncaused universe/multiverse makes that existential humanist question redundant.
In other words, the sentient inhabitants of THIS universe ask ‘‘whence, why, whither’’. The atheist response is nihilistic and absurd to people who - for some inexplicable reason - seek meaning and answers.
L
Love4All
Guest
So, no Resurrection of the Body?
- Status