An Eternal Universe? Not According to Modern Science.

[- Qatada -]

Asalaam alaikum Warahmatulah Wabarakatuh

An Eternal Universe? Not According to Modern Science.



Atheist Question #1;

This universe does astound our small minds, petty by-products of chance life; but is there any part of that we can actually say "that is so amazing only a creator could have caused it?"



Muslim Answer #1:

Yes most definitly, some examples:

1) rate of expansion after big bang

“If the rate of expansion one second after the 'Big Bang' had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (0,000000000000001%), the universe would have recollapsed. The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous”. (Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes', Page 128).

2) gravity :

“If gravity (released by the Big Bang) had been stronger or weaker by even one part in ten thousand million million million million million million (0,00000000000000000000000000000000000001%) then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.” (Brandon Carter, ‘New Physics’ Page 187).

Atheist Question #2 - Multiverse Theory:

Theatheist may claimthat; A MultiVerse was existant 'forever' and had no beginning. So imagine a bunch of lots of universes together = a Multiverse.

And within that Multiverse, many 'other universes' were expanding (like the Big Bang), so they collided into each other - causing a side Big Bang of energy - which would cause this universe to come into existence, and start expanding.


So atheists are saying that the universe wasn't really created, instead, it began from a group of other Universes colliding together, providing energy for a new Big Bang = this universe.

*This is known as the Branes or String theory.



Muslim Answer #2:

the multiverse argument just shifts the question as to how it [the multiverse] all originated in the first place;

Whether or not it is scientificly plausible, is rather irrelevant. The multiverse explenation only shifts the question from how was our universe created to how was our multiverse created. Again note that there's a diffrence between believing in an infinite multiverse, and an infinite God. Because an infinite (in time) multiverse would face the same technical problems with entropy as an infinite universe (i.e. the amount of useful energy of eternal big bangs, - expansion after contraction - continuously, would be reduced to 0, so needing a starting point once again at some time). That is because the multiverse theory sees the multiverse as the same closed system with the same universal forces.

What is being said is;

1) The Multiverse idea just shifts the question to; How did the Multiverse begin, instead of the question; how did the universe begin?


2) If the atheist says the multiverse was 'forever without a beginning', then a rule called Entropy* argues against an 'eternal/forever' multiverse.

What is Entropy: *Even if "open and close" [expansion/contraction] universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for "something" to be get energy from "nothing".

Eternal Big Bangs couldn't occur eternally because they would soon run out of useful energy (because after 'each' big bang there is less useful energy remaining) - finally having no useful energy to cause big bangs - meaning that there has to be a 'first cause' for it all over again.

So atheists cant say the universe has had eternal big bangs and contractions without a first cause. We say the causer of all things is Allah who depends on no-one and is the Powerful. [al Qawiy]


In Detail:

Slide 13: Refuting the Oscillating Model Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed.

Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy* to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every \"opening\" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing.

*entropy: For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. (i.e. which isn't useful.) Thus, every process occurring in the world results in an overall increase in entropy (thermodynamic heat which isn't useful) and a corresponding degradation in energy. entropy: Definition from Answers.com

source: 1) William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19
Powerpoint by Bassam Zawadi; 3 Atheism And Materialism - refutations - SlideShare

Atheist Argument #3 against Entropy;

But Energy never gets destroyed, energy just changes state like Einstein said.


Muslim Answer #3;

Yes, that might be the case. However, we are talking about 'Useful Energy' which allows future Big Bangs to occur. After a certain amount of Big Bangs, the amount of Useful Energy will be decreased everytime, and the only energy that will remain is Heat (the energy used for the Big Bangs had changed into heat, and heat is not useful in creating future Big Bangs for other newer universes [since Kinetic and Potential Energy is needed for that].) This heat cannot do anything since it is irreversible energy (so it can't be useful energy for future Big Bangs.)


So in effect, the universe cannot be eternal/forever. If it was forever, maximum Entropy would have already been reached an eternity ago, so there wouldn't be any useful energy to allow this present universe to come into existence!

The only other solution would be for a new Provider of Useful Energy to start the whole process once again. And once these Big Bang's ran out of useful energy [Maximum Entropy reached], a Provider of New useful Energy would be needed once again repeatedly each time.


The atheist might say that some energy which may seem 'irreversible' can be changed into useful energy through manipulation. But to change its state into useful energy through manipulation would require further energy for its transformation, and there is a lack of this energy already. So this wouldn't be possible.


So a multiverse cannot survive on its own forever, rather it needs a Provider of Useful Energy each time it runs out, based on the scientific rule of Entropy.

Atheist Question #4:

Atheist; How can you apply the rules of our universe, to the laws of other universes and the Multiverse? The physics of our universe might be different to the multiverse?


Muslim Answer #4:

The multiverse theory sees the multiverse as the same closed system with the same universal forces as ours. [So the rules are the same for the universe and multiverse according to the Multiverse theory.]

If the atheist disagrees, he needs to explain what the alternative physical laws are of the other universe/multiverse, and he can't do this because science has not proven or explained what their physical laws are [infact it hasn't even discovered those other universes, since the whole multiverse theory is a hypothesis (educated guess)].

So the argument still stands, our current state of the universe denies the possibility of time dating back infinitly. So similarly, the idea of an infinite multiverse going an eternity back in time is also denied, according to modern day scientific standards.

Atheist Question #5:

Atheist; "the reason we find the world exists for us to be able to observe it is because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to observe it."

So what you're saying is? The reason that we observe that the world exists in the way that it does, is because if it wouldn't exist in that way, we wouldn't observe it? That is what you could call the "contra-antropic-principle". But that seems like a fancy way for saying, "It is like that because if it weren't like that then it wouldn't be like that". Well yeah, obviously, but that still doesn't make it any less miraculously that it is like that, and not any other of the million less favourable ways.




Atheist; "He's an infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful, omnipresent being which can manipulate anything in the world according to his will from anywhere. A being like that is pretty much the most complex being you can think of." (hence he's more complicated than the idea of an eternal universe).


answer:
I grant that God is quite possibly the most complex among the beings. That however does not mean that the idea of God as creator is the most complex of all ideas. In fact I consider the multiverse, or at least, the way you suggest it accounts for existence a theory that is far more (needlessly) complex.

I realize that if I claim "God is the solution to the question of existence", then you could reply: but who created God? My reply in term would be, God is not created, he is timeless. This however logically fits. A universe going back infinitly in time, defies logic especially when considering entropy. A god which is time-less on the other hand (meaning not inside of the dimension of time) does not defy logic. Therefore to some extent I find it persuasive.


[Meaning: since Intelligent Design 'idea' is the most plausible explanation (to me) based on my understanding of science and probabilities of nature doing all these acts in a synchronised way), then the multiverse hypothesis 'idea' is even more complex in comparison since it defies logic and relies on ALOT of coincidences.]

[Charzhino]

Havn't considered the possibility of the eternal oscilatory universe model? That is surely possible with or without a God.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi,
The concept of an oscillating model is very problematic due to entropy.

[Charzhino]

Hi,
The concept of an oscillating model is very problematic due to entropy.

We don't exactly know the fate of the universe with assurity because we do not know how the universe works fully and how much dark matter/energy there actually is. But consider this thought experiement:

God is infinite. He created the universe at a particular moment in existance by the big bang. The universe is destroyed by the big crunch, and immediatley is reactivated by another big bang, etc. This process can happen to infinite. Since God is infinite, he is able to sustain the universe being eternal and infinite as well, since there will be no time that the universe hasn't existed as long as God has been around, which is forever.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Abdul Fattah]

We don't exactly know the fate of the universe with assurity because we do not know how the universe works fully and how much dark matter/energy there actually is. But consider this thought experiement:

God is infinite. He created the universe at a particular moment in existance by the big bang. The universe is destroyed by the big crunch, and immediatley is reactivated by another big bang, etc. This process can happen to infinite. Since God is infinite, he is able to sustain the universe being eternal and infinite as well, since there will be no time that the universe hasn't existed as long as God has been around, which is forever.

- First of all, to combine the oscillating model with creationism kind of defeats the purpose, considering that the oscillating model was created as an alternative for creation.
- Secondly your hypothesis doesn't make sense. If God created the universe, then it isn't infinite. The word infinite implies that it is without creation, ever-existing.
- Not to mention the problem with time. The dimension of time is a physical construct which is part of our universe. Before big bang there didn't even exist "time".

[Charzhino]

- First of all, to combine the oscillating model with creationism kind of defeats the purpose, considering that the oscillating model was created as an alternative for creation.

In Hinduism and Dharmic religions, the universe is seen as eternal, which is just a reflection/thought of God's true nature and since God is eternal, the universe is also eternal.

- Secondly your hypothesis doesn't make sense. If God created the universe, then it isn't infinite. The word infinite implies that it is without creation, ever-existing.

I may have worded it wrongly. Let me try again. If God ''creates'' the first big bang, which is followed by another big crunch, and ''created'' another big bang, then the universe can be eternal because there would really be no ''first big bang created'' because if you keep going back, there would be no beginning orend, because the source of these big bangs (God) is eternal itself.

- Not to mention the problem with time. The dimension of time is a physical construct which is part of our universe. Before big bang there didn't even exist "time".

If you take the oscillatory universe theory, then right before the big bang, was the collapse of a previous universe.

[Woodrow]

We don't exactly know the fate of the universe with assurity because we do not know how the universe works fully and how much dark matter/energy there actually is.

I agree with that. We do know one day this universe will end, but we have no knowledge when and can only speculate about the exact method.

But consider this thought experiement:

God is infinite. He created the universe at a particular moment in existance by the big bang. The universe is destroyed by the big crunch, and immediatley is reactivated by another big bang, etc. This process can happen to infinite. Since God is infinite, he is able to sustain the universe being eternal and infinite as well, since there will be no time that the universe hasn't existed as long as God has been around, which is forever.

The fact that it was created, eliminates it from being infinite. At some point there would have been a first universe.

[Charzhino]

The fact that it was created, eliminates it from being infinite. At some point there would have been a first universe.

I addressed this in the previous post: If the source of the big bangs, i./e God is eternal and God creates the universe again by the big bang after the collapse of each one in continous motion, then there would be no ''first creation big bang'' because God is infinite. If you keep going back and back to find the very first big bang, you cant because God has no beginning or end.

[Charzhino]

I just searched this verse in the Quran, isn't it indicating a oscilatory universe, or atleast a big bang/big crunch model?

"That Day We will fold up heaven like folding up the pages of a book. As We originated the first creation so We will regenerate it. It is a promise binding on Us. That is what We will do." (Surah 21:104).

[Abdul Fattah]

hi,

I may have worded it wrongly. Let me try again. If God ''creates'' the first big bang, which is followed by another big crunch, and ''created'' another big bang, then the universe can be eternal because there would really be no ''first big bang created'' because if you keep going back, there would be no beginning orend, because the source of these big bangs (God) is eternal itself.

First of all, this is not the oscillating theory. In the oscillating theory, one universe creates the next. One being the result of the other. You are simply taking a scientific name on loan, and pasting it to your own believes, despite that the theory and the believes are inherently different. The article of the opening post was about modern science, not about other beliefs. What is shown in the article is that the theory of an oscillating universe fails in science.
Secondly it could be argued that if each successive universe is created separately, that those are entirely different universes, and not "our" universe.
Oh, and even after rephrasing, you still mentioned a "first" big bang, again contradicting your own concept of infinity.

I just searched this verse in the Quran, isn't it indicating a oscilatory universe, or atleast a big bang/big crunch model?
"That Day We will fold up heaven like folding up the pages of a book. As We originated the first creation so We will regenerate it. It is a promise binding on Us. That is what We will do." (Surah 21:104).

Not really, it speaks of judgement day, and the destruction of earth.

From tefsir ibn kathir:

The Heavens will be rolled up on the Day of Resurrection

Allah says: this will happen on the Day of Resurrection:

[يَوْمَ نَطْوِى السَّمَآءَ كَطَىِّ السِّجِلِّ لِلْكُتُبِ]

(And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heaven like a Sijill for books.) This is like the Ayah:

[وَمَا قَدَرُواْ اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالاٌّرْضُ جَمِيعـاً قَبْضَـتُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَـمَةِ وَالسَّمَـوَتُ مَطْوِيَّـتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ سُبْحَـنَهُ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ]

(They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified be He, and High be He above all that they associate as partners with Him!) [39:67] Al-Bukhari recorded that Nafi` reported from Ibn `Umar that the Messenger of Allah said:

«إِنَّ اللهَ يَقْبِضُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ الْأَرَضِينَ وَتَكُونُ السَّمَوَاتُ بِيَمِينِه»

(On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will seize the earth and the heavens will be in His Right Hand.) This was recorded by Al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him.

[كَطَىِّ السِّجِلِّ لِلْكُتُبِ]

(like a Sijill rolled up for books.) What is meant by Sijill is book. As-Suddi said concerning this Ayah: "As-Sijill is an angel who is entrusted with the records; when a person dies, his Book (of deeds) is taken up to As-Sijill, and he rolls it up and puts it away until the Day of Resurrection.'' But the correct view as narrated from Ibn `Abbas is that As-Sijill refers to the record (of deeds). This was also reported from him by `Ali bin Abi Talhah and Al-`Awfi. This was also stated by Mujahid, Qatadah and others. This was the view favored by Ibn Jarir, because this usage is well-known in the (Arabic) language. Based on the above, the meaning is: the Day when the heaven will be rolled up like a scroll. This is like the Ayah:

[فَلَمَّا أَسْلَمَا وَتَلَّهُ لِلْجَبِينِ ]

(Then, when they had both submitted themselves (to the will of Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead.) [37:103] There are many more linguistic examples in this respect. Allah knows best.

[كَمَا بَدَأْنَآ أَوَّلَ خَلْقٍ نُّعِيدُهُ وَعْداً عَلَيْنَآ إِنَّا كُنَّا فَـعِلِينَ]

(As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it.) means, this will inevitably come to pass on the Day when Allah creates His creation anew. As He created them in the first place, He is surely able to re-create them. This must inevitably come to pass because it is one of the things that Allah has promised, and He does not break His promise. He is able to do that. Because He says:

[إِنَّا كُنَّا فَـعِلِينَ]

(Truly, We shall do it.) Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn `Abbas said: "The Messenger of Allah stood among us exhorting us, and said:

«إِنَّكُمْ مَحْشُورُونَ إِلَى اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ حُفَاةً عُرَاةً غُرْلًا، كَمَا بَدَأْنَا أَوَّلَ خَلْقٍ نُعِيدُهُ وَعْدًا عَلَيْنَا، إِنَّا كُنَّا فَاعِلِين»

(You will be gathered before Allah barefoot, naked and uncircumcised. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it.) And he mentioned the entire Hadith. It was also recorded in the Two Sahihs, and Al-Bukhari mentioned it in his Tafsir of this Ayah.

[Charzhino]

hi,


First of all, this is not the oscillating theory. In the oscillating theory, one universe creates the next. One being the result of the other. You are simply taking a scientific name on loan, and pasting it to your own believes, despite that the theory and the believes are inherently different. The article of the opening post was about modern science, not about other beliefs. What is shown in the article is that the theory of an oscillating universe fails in science.

It's the same thing, after the present universe contracts, it gives rise to another by the big bang. Whether it be the Big Bounce theory or the oscillatory theory, the model is pretty much the same.

''According to some oscillatory universe theorists, the Big Bang was simply the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce''

Secondly it could be argued that if each successive universe is created separately, that those are entirely different universes, and not "our" universe.
Oh, and even after rephrasing, you still mentioned a "first" big bang, again contradicting your own concept of infinity.

You didn't read my analogy properly. I put ''first'' big bang in quotation marks for a reason. You tell me, if God creates big bang/big crunch in continuous motion, when was the first big bang, if God is infinite. You wouldn't be able to find one because because the process would have no beginning or end.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi,

It's the same thing, after the present universe contracts, it gives rise to another by the big bang. Whether it be the Big Bounce theory or the oscillatory theory, the model is pretty much the same.

''According to some oscillatory universe theorists, the Big Bang was simply the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce''

Sorry, but no. Not at all. It's not the same thing at all. It's a different theory. The oscilating theory is a theory in which the universe is self-sustaining ever-existing. Creation is not a part of it.
While there might be some similarities with your beliefs, it is nevertheless a different theory. And when you call your beliefs under the same name, you are abusing the scientific theory to give your beliefs more prestige.

And besides, as I said this is off-topic. the thread is about modern science, not about hinduism.
:offtopic:

[Charzhino]

Hi,


Sorry, but no. Not at all. It's not the same thing at all. It's a different theory. oscilating theory is a theory in which the universe is self-sustaining ever-existing. Creation is not a part of it.

This is exactly what I am talking about. There's nothing different to what I have said. I never said the universe was created at a abolsute reference.

While there might be some similarities with your beliefs, it is nevertheless a different theory. And when you call your beliefs under the same name, you are abusing the scientific theory to give your beliefs more prestige.

Lol I have heard this somewhere before, I wonder where?

[Abdul Fattah]

This is exactly what I am talking about. There's nothing different to what I have said. I never said the universe was created at a abolsute reference.

Yes there is, there is a difference. The theory that you are describing is different from the theory that the oscillating model describes. Just because there are some similarities or you copy some parts of a model doesn't mean you can call it by the same name.

[Charzhino]

Yes there is, there is a difference. The theory that you are describing is different from the theory that the oscillating model describes. Just because there are some similarities or you copy some parts of a model doesn't mean you can call it by the same name.

Richard Tolman theory of Oscillatory universe:

However, some scientists speculate that the Big Crunch would not signal the end. They believe that perhaps another Big Bang would follow the Big Crunch, giving rise to a new universe of possibilities. This idea that Big Bangs follow Big Crunches in a never-ending cycle is known as an oscillating universe.

This is exactly what I have described, if not please kindly show me where you think the difference is.

[Abdul Fattah]

Richard Tolman theory of Oscillatory universe:

However, some scientists speculate that the Big Crunch would not signal the end. They believe that perhaps another Big Bang would follow the Big Crunch, giving rise to a new universe of possibilities. This idea that Big Bangs follow Big Crunches in a never-ending cycle is known as an oscillating universe.

This is exactly what I have described, if not please kindly show me where you think the difference is.

The difference lies in:
At one hand, the oscillating theory argues that the sum total of energy "oscillates" from one cycle of big-bang-to-big-crunch to the next cycle. Such a hypothetical system would be a completely self-sustaining closed system. This hypothesis is however abandoned by the majority of scientists because of the following two problems:
1) Each cycle would have an increase in entropy, thus an infinite number of cycles needs an infinite source of energy. The system is then no longer a closed, self sustaining system but an open dependant one. Thus defeating the purpose of the theory in the first place.
2) The rate of expansion of the universe is actually increasing rather then decreasing, so scientists no longer consider big crunch plausible.

A couple of years ago, the theory had a mild revival due to the Baum-Frampton model which allegedly answers the problem of entropy. However, by solving the entropy problem, the theory causes new problems and it doesn't even address the problem of increasing expansion.

At the other hand, your theory claims that the energy total is maintained by divine intervention rather then by a self-sustaining process. There wouldn't thus even be any oscillation of energy in the first place; but instead simply a replacement by new energy. You're also not working with the universe as a closed system, but rather seeing it as an open system. More importantly, the oscillating model bases its views on scientific findings, whereas your theory is completely faith-based, and ignores the science behind it and ignores the many scientific flaws in the theory.

Also, I'd like to point out again, that this thread was intended to discus the plausibility of scientific theories, not the plausibility of Hinduism.

[Pygoscelis]

Its all fine and good to demonstrate that atheists don't have the answers, and I'd agree with that. We don't know how the universe came to be and we can't explain it beyond some rather primitive science.

So to admit we don't know and are guessing is good.

But to then leap from that to "god did it" and to then give that god characteristics, and a code of behaviour he wants us to follow doesn't flow in any way from there.

Even if we were able to show that the universe must have a begining and was sparked by something "outside the universe" that wouldn't establish anything beyond that itself. You can't take that and claim you have evidence for Gods and especially not evidence for any particular God you may endorse.

Just sayin'.

[Ramadhan]

But to then leap from that to "god did it" and to then give that god characteristics, and a code of behaviour he wants us to follow doesn't flow in any way from there.

You have been in these forums for a while, and I am sure you are pretty interested in knowing more about Islam, otherwise what's the point of you being here.
You should know by now that we do not give Allah SWT characteristics, it is He who revealed His characteristics by 99 names in the Qur'an.
We do not create the codes of behaviour, Allah gave those to us to follow.

I hope you remember this in your discussions.

[CosmicPathos]

Its all fine and good to demonstrate that atheists don't have the answers, and I'd agree with that. We don't know how the universe came to be and we can't explain it beyond some rather primitive science.

So to admit we don't know and are guessing is good.

But to then leap from that to "god did it" and to then give that god characteristics, and a code of behaviour he wants us to follow doesn't flow in any way from there.

Even if we were able to show that the universe must have a begining and was sparked by something "outside the universe" that wouldn't establish anything beyond that itself. You can't take that and claim you have evidence for Gods and especially not evidence for any particular God you may endorse.

Just sayin'.

Good that despite being an atheist you acknowledged that. Maybe you are a good human and that is why.
Well, that is precisely what faith in the Unseen is in Islam. And Islamic God is of the Unseen. After observing all this splendor, id say that whoever did it, it is God. You'd say that "i do not know who did it till we figure it out." And figuring out that seems pretty implausible as of now. Scientists cannot even figure out how life emerged which is not too way back in time compared to the origins of universe. Maybe some day. Even if we figure something out in terms of material causes, those causes would have the First Cause. its a cycle that just continues to go back and, from my belief, ends up at God.

[Abdul Fattah]

Its all fine and good to demonstrate that atheists don't have the answers, and I'd agree with that. We don't know how the universe came to be and we can't explain it beyond some rather primitive science.

So to admit we don't know and are guessing is good.

But to then leap from that to "god did it" and to then give that god characteristics, and a code of behaviour he wants us to follow doesn't flow in any way from there.

Even if we were able to show that the universe must have a begining and was sparked by something "outside the universe" that wouldn't establish anything beyond that itself. You can't take that and claim you have evidence for Gods and especially not evidence for any particular God you may endorse.

Just sayin'.

The points in the opening post went beyond merely showing that science does not know. So when you imply we're "leaping" from merely that, you're fighting a strawmen argument. On another note, nobody here claimed,that this proves Islam is true, or that Allah is the Real God.
Just sayin' ...

[- Qatada -]

Asalaam alaikum warahmatulah wabarakatuh

A Universe/s Regressing back Infinitely is illogical. How?


Imagine you're standing in a line, with infinite amount of people standing ahead of you.

Will you ever get your turn?


The same way this universe would never get its chance to come into existence, if infinite universes were before it.


The same way God is not created by a series of infinitely regressing created gods, otherwise this God would have infinite amount of 'gods' before He could 'come into existence'.

So instead we affirm that God is One, the Originator, without being created. And this does not defy logic, since God by definition is infinite.

[Skavau]

Asalaam alaikum warahmatulah wabarakatuh

Infinite Regression [going] into the past is illogical. How?


Imagine you're standing in a line, with infinite amount of people standing ahead of you.

Will you ever get your turn?


The same way this universe would never get its chance to come into existence, if infinite universes were before it.

The same way God is not created by a series of infinitely regressing created gods, otherwise this God would have infinite amount of 'gods' before He could 'come into existence'.

So something, according to you did come from nothing.

[Uthman]

Greetings Skavau,

So something, according to you did come from nothing.

Are you talking about God? If so, then we don't believe he came from nothing since this would imply that, at some point, God came into existence. As you may be aware, we don't believe this to be the case. You might have misunderstood the point Br. Qatada was trying to make with his last sentence?

Regards

[Skavau]

Greetings Skavau, Are you talking about God? If so, then we don't believe he came from nothing since this would imply that, at some point, God came into existence. As you may be aware, we don't believe this to be the case. You might have misunderstood the point Br. Qatada was trying to make with his last sentence?

Regards

He got himself into a quandry. He must, if your response is accurate to what he thinks simultaneously believes that infinite existence is impossible and that God is infinite.

[جوري]

He got himself into a quandry. He must, if your response is accurate to what he thinks simultaneously believes that infinite existence is impossible and that God is infinite.

God isn't a part of the creation as such only God is infinite and everything else isn't!..
I believe the quandary is yours alone!

all the best

[Skavau]

God isn't a part of the creation as such only God is infinite and everything else isn't!..

That is a concept that you insist is true. I have no reason to accept the universe as a 'creation'. I am told that infinite existence cannot be possible in anyway shape or form, but then am informed that I must somehow accept an exemption clause for God. That everything we understand about reality is void when it concerns God.

It all appears far too convenient.

[جوري]

That is a concept that you insist is true. I have no reason to accept the universe as a 'creation'. I am told that infinite existence cannot be possible in anyway shape or form, but then am informed that I must somehow accept an exemption clause for God. That everything we understand about reality is void when it concerns God.

And as such no one is holding a gun to your head to accept that as true.. we all subscribe to something vague which we hold in confidence to be the truth..
by the way if the world wasn't created then what was it? Always there? do you not hold that concept to be the truth and expect that others place some confidence in that?..

perhaps if you looked at things in contrast of all the other options that exist you'll realize that deep down inside you too hold on to some belief system. And as the adage goes ''when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'' conan doyle ..

now whatever remains for you, might differ from what remains for us but in the end you are standing on equal grounds with everyone else.. and that is the fork up the road where we part ways!

all the best

[Skavau]

And as such no one is holding a gun to your head to accept that as true..

I never said they were. This is a discussion thread. I was responding to a comment you made. I assumed you were using it as an explanation for a contradiction I find in the cosmological argument apologists.

we all subscribe to something vague which we hold in confidence to be the truth..

Perhaps.

by the way if the world wasn't created then what was it? Always there? do you not hold that concept to be the truth and expect that others place some confidence in that?..

I do not believe that Earth was "always there". Concerning however, your question: I don't share your position. Things in the natural world are caused and not created.

now whatever remains for you, might differ from what remains for us but in the end you are standing on equal grounds with everyone else.. and that is the fork up the road where we part ways!

all the best

Uh... okay?

[جوري]

I never said they were. This is a discussion thread. I was responding to a comment you made. I assumed you were using it as an explanation for a contradiction I find in the cosmological argument apologists.

I was using it to elucidate that you alone find a contradiction in what he wrote!

Perhaps.

that is very weighty

I do not believe that Earth was "always there". Concerning however, your question: I don't share your position. Things in the natural world are caused and not created.

What is the difference between caused and created in your book? What caused the earth to come about and everything in it or outside of it?

Media Tags are no longer supported

Uh... okay?

Why must you foolishly exclaim when you have nothing of substance to write?

[Ramadhan]

He got himself into a quandry. He must, if your response is accurate to what he thinks simultaneously believes that infinite existence is impossible and that God is infinite.

infinite existence is impossible in this universe.
God is outside universe/creation.
God does not subject to laws and logic of our universe (His creation).

[Skavau]

infinite existence is impossible in this universe.
God is outside universe/creation.

This is just an exemption clause. It is an excuse for not being able to provide a reasonable explanation for a self-confessed inconsistent world view.

I could just as reasonably declare that the universe happened because of a series of unexplained tubes and decree inquiry into their makeup as impossible.

[Gator]

Here's a lecture from an Atheist Alliance International forum. Thought it would be interesting to people interested in the subject. (Its long!)

"Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Thanks.

[Pygoscelis]

Thanks for that Gator, that was quite good.

[freethinking]

We don't exactly know the fate of the universe with assurity because we do not know how the universe works fully and how much dark matter/energy there actually is. But consider this thought experiement:

God is infinite. He created the universe at a particular moment in existance by the big bang. The universe is destroyed by the big crunch, and immediatley is reactivated by another big bang, etc. This process can happen to infinite. Since God is infinite, he is able to sustain the universe being eternal and infinite as well, since there will be no time that the universe hasn't existed as long as God has been around, which is forever.

Gid is inside AND outside of time and of this universe and eternity

[freethinking]

Gid is inside AND outside of time and of this universe and eternity

Padrdon me Lord I meant of course God not gid!