Is this Universe Really Eternal? And why I believe "God did it."

**- Qatada -** · 05-11-2010

Asalaam alaikum Warahmatulah Wabarakatuh.

Is this Universe Really Eternal? And why I believe "God did it."

No, it's not.

I will address 3 main points in this article to support the Theist [believing in God] stance inshaa' Allah. (If you don't understand point 1, move onto point 2.)

The 1st point will explain Scientifically why the Multi/Universe cannot be Eternal.

The 2nd point will be Philosophical as to why the Multi/Universe is not eternal.

The 3rd point will discuss why I believe God is the Designer of this Universe.

Introduction: The Big Bang.

Edwin Hubble studied the universe through his innovative famous Hubble Telescope, and discovered that the stars in our universe were gradually distancing from each other, concluding that the universe was continuously expanding. But if the universe was continuouslly expanding as time progressed, how was the universe like in the past? How was the universe like in the beginning? He concluded that if the universe is expanding into the future, if reversed - it would have become smaller and smaller, until it started from a single point - a Singularity. This Singularity is a point with enormous mass all condensed, to fit that single point. In the future - this single point would expand continuously to form an expanding universe - like the one we live in right now. It would be within this Universe that everything takes place.

(NOTE: Whether you agree or disagree with the Big Bang is a separate issue, but this is when you are addressing the atheists.)

This is as far as science takes us. Anything that could happen 'before' this Singularity is not proven in Science. Since this Singularity was the origin of our universe according to the theory of the Big Bang.

What Caused the Big Bang?

When Theists heard of the Big Bang, they joyed in the fact that this Universe had a Origin point - refuting the Atheists & Philosophers of old who said the Universe was static/existant forever without the need of God. Atheists on the other hand denied that God did it, and they replied - this Universe is part of a series of other Universes [A Multiverse] - maybe forming as a side reaction to them other Universes. But both groups can't actually prove their statements, since this is out of the boundaries of scientific discovery.

A point to consider however is that: The argument of the atheist is not really a powerful one - since the question just shifts to - How did the Multiverse originate (instead of, how did the Universe originate)?

If the atheist was to reply back with the classical; Who created God, the reply could be that: God is not created, He is timeless. This however logically fits. A universe going back infinitly in time, defies logic especially when considering Entropy (as will be explained below). A God which is timeless on the other hand (meaning not inside of the dimension of time) does not defy logic.

1) The Scientific Explanation: The Rule of Entropy.

Imagine a glass of Ice, placed in a hot room. The ice will gradually melt, and become water, and finally the water will heat up to the temperature of the room. This water cannot return back to ice form in such an environment.

Now imagine this Universe/Multiverse - it has alot of Energy Stored within it [potential/stored energy]. This energy causes the movements [kinetic energy] of the planets/stars etc. But Energy continuously changes state - this Movement Energy converts into Heat Energy as a side reaction. This Heat Energy does not cause much benefit since it cannot change into a useful state of Energy.

Energy of the Universe:

Potential/Stored Energy --> Movement Energy (of the Planets/stars etc.) --> Heat Energy (unuseful Energy.)

Energy is Limited (due to Universe being in Closed system) --- Planet/star movement Produces Heat --- When Heat at Maximum, Maximum Entropy reached. Universe Stops moving.
Key: --> (Produces.)

As the Stored/Potential Energy is used, Movement is Produced - so Heat is produced.

When the Stored Energy is totally used up, the Movement of the Universe stops, and the Heat Energy has reached its maximum. This Heat Energy is irreversible and cannot cause Movement again, just like the water cannot return back to ice in that environment. Just like a battery has used up all its energy. This is in effect called Maximum Entropy (Maximum Heat Reached).

So the Universe/Multiverse has a limited amount of Energy - due to the theory of the Multiverse seeing the Multiverse with the same Universal laws as the Universe we live in. Since this Universe has a closed system, the Multiverse also has a closed system. And a closed system is like a sugar tablet, it will only contain a limited amount of Energy, which when used up - ceases to provide energy for anything.

So we see that according to the Rule of Entropy, we should reflect on the following points;

1] If the Multiverse was Eternal/Infinite/Forever years old, it would run out of Useful Energy along time ago (since Maximum Entropy would already be reached then.).

2] (Based on 1) No Useful Energy an infinite time ago - would make it Impossible for this Universe to come into existence (since this Universe would require Energy to form & expand.)

3] HOWEVER, this universe did come into existence.

2] There will be a time when this Universe, or even Multiverse will come to an End in the future.

1] When this Multiverse comes to an End (due to Maximum Entropy being reached) - It stops functioning. - Where does this universe/multiverse get its new Useful Energy from? It would need Energy from an outside source. Meaning that there has to be a 'first Original cause' for everything all over again.

2) The Philosophical Argument: Infinite people Ahead of You, Will you ever get your turn?

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.

3) Why do I believe God did it?

Theists argue that its miraculous that this Universe contains life [i.e. on Earth].

Atheists will reply that it's lucky that this Universe does contain life, but this is a product of coincidence, since the many Universes before may not have contained life, until this one was able to be in a way to support it (Also known as the Anthropic Principle.)

So how can you take such a point to your advantage?

Reply: Scientifically, we're only aware of this one Universe. There is no scientific proof of other Universes/Multiverse.So the fact that we are sure of this Universe, and the fact that its probable that only this Universe has ever been existant - then this Universe being suitable for life is a miraculous feat. Furthermore, its even more miraculous that this Universe is not only suitable for life, but actually sustains life too, and has done so for many thousands of years. This seems miraculous to me, especially when this is the only Universe that we're scientifically aware of.

The Atheistwill probably reply; "you find the world/universe miraculous to observe, but if it didn't sustain us, we [the human race] wouldn't be able to observe it." [i.e. we wouldn't even be able to observe the universe if it wasn't suitable to sustain us.]

Your Counter-Reply would be; That is what you could call the "contra-anthropic-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 miraculous than it already is!

**جوري** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by DuncG

Qatada,

Regarding your point 3. as to why you believe God caused the Universe, your argument appears to boil down to: life exists, therefore God must exist to cause it. This is effectively a probability argument where you are implying that the odds of life being possible are exceptionally small - so small that it's more likely that a supernatural cause was responsible. The issues I can see with this line of argument is that:

1. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the Universe being the way it is. In fact, there's no evidence at all to even support thinking that it could have turned out any other way.
2. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the supernatural existing. Without this probability to compare to the probability of the Universe turning out the way it has, it is impossible to conclude that the supernatural cause is the more likely.

Also, given that the Universe is suitable for life (well, a tiny percentage of its volume, at least) I don't find it surprising that it's capable of sustaining life (again, in a tiny percentage of its volume). The Universe is so huge (possibly infinite in spatial extent) that I would think the odds of some part being suitable and stable enough for survival would be about one in one.

Anyway, thanks for starting the topic, I'll look forward to discussing this with you.

Someone has in fact worked on the probability of randomly assembling a primitive cell:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

all the best

**Ramadhan** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by DuncG

Qatada,

Regarding your point 3. as to why you believe God caused the Universe, your argument appears to boil down to: life exists, therefore God must exist to cause it. This is effectively a probability argument where you are implying that the odds of life being possible are exceptionally small - so small that it's more likely that a supernatural cause was responsible. The issues I can see with this line of argument is that:

1. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the Universe being the way it is. In fact, there's no evidence at all to even support thinking that it could have turned out any other way.
2. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the supernatural existing. Without this probability to compare to the probability of the Universe turning out the way it has, it is impossible to conclude that the supernatural cause is the more likely.

Also, given that the Universe is suitable for life (well, a tiny percentage of its volume, at least) I don't find it surprising that it's capable of sustaining life (again, in a tiny percentage of its volume). The Universe is so huge (possibly infinite in spatial extent) that I would think the odds of some part being suitable and stable enough for survival would be about one in one.

Anyway, thanks for starting the topic, I'll look forward to discussing this with you.

Even if there were no life in the universe, the universe still must have been created by something, right?

Unless you believe that the universe popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself, which, I must say, would be laughable.
Oh wait, that is actually the belief of the atheists.

**Skavau** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by naidamar

Even if there were no life in the universe, it still must have been created by something, right?

Unless you believe that the universe popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself, which, I must say, would be laughable.
Oh I forgot, that is actually the belief of the atheists.

No it isn't.

You speak about others not understanding the concept of God in Islam and then go and make inaccurate claims like that. Find me a single atheist that has directly said that the universe "popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself".

**جوري** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by Skavau

No it isn't.

You speak about others not understanding the concept of God in Islam and then go and make inaccurate claims like that. Find me a single atheist that has directly said that the universe "popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself".

try page one:

Originally Posted by Lynx

Hello. The universe could have just popped out of nowhere for all we know. That is totally consistent and logical.
.

**Skavau** · 05-15-2010

Try Page Two:

Originally Posted by Lynx

No, there is no proof given that something can't come out of nothing. The statement that something can come out of nothing cannot be disproved a priori because the sentence does not take an incoherent form (a form that violates any of the rules of logic). Therefore, the logical possibility exists and it follows from this conclusion that there are two possible theories at the moment: God created the universe or the universe popped into existence out of nothing. I am not claiming either is true (so there is no burden of proof on me) but the OP is claiming that one of those is true without providing an argument. Like I mentioned in my first reply, the OP only tackles ONE possible objection to his position (the argument from many universes) but leaves out another possibility. In a nutshell, the cosmological argument is doomed to fail because you can't ever prove the first cause is God; there are too many other possibilities. Maybe this is the only universe and maybe the singularity that became the big-bang poofed itself into existence-without further argument the scenario I just described is as plausible as the explanation 'God did it'.

There is no requirement for an atheist to believe that the universe came from nothing, or was by nothing.

**جوري** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by Skavau

Try Page Two:

There is no requirement for an atheist to believe that the universe came from nothing, or was by nothing.

Is it a requirement though for an atheist to constantly end with a foot in his/her mouth? You don't get to swallow your words or modulate them when folks ask you to validate your stance.. silly rabbit, I thought you'd learned that by now?
Either way you should make a habit of reading before posting so you don't end up like your fellow with a constant evolution of words no but I mean, 'well what I really mean', 'what we are saying is'.. blah blah blah-- except of course with the usual air of pomposity born of ignorance than one actually struck by the error of his ways!

all the best

**DuncG** · 05-15-2010

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

The probability of life arising given the Universe is suitable for and capable of sustaining life wasn't one of the probabilities that I was directly addressing. This is because it is currently unknown as to whether the Universe is finite or infinite in spatial extent. If infinite, then the probability of life arising in a Universe that allows it tends to unity. If finite, we then need to compare the probability of life arising as a function of the available volume and time. Until this issue is addressed I cannot see how arguments for the probability of life arising are relevant - they appear to be jumping the gun.

However, I did scan through the paper you referenced and found on page 4, in the Introduction:

"It is presumed that life on Earth began as a single cell. An essential aspect of evolution theory is that the first living cell originated in the early Earth also as a result of random processes."

This is a common misconception. From the perspective of Evolutionary Theory the only objects of interest are replicators that are capable of descent with modification. It is most probable that the first replicators were the simplest and the simplest replicators that have been found are self-replicating molecules (or a mixture of two or more mutually-replicating molecules). These are many orders less complex than the simplest cell. As such, once a simple replicator has formed by random processes, then futher appeals to arguments requiring random causation are null due to the ratchet effect that Evolution imposes on probability. Starting with a simple cell is thus disingenuous - the author needs to redo the calculation taking into account the simplest known self-replicating molecular system that is capable of descent with modification.

**DuncG** · 05-15-2010

naidamar,

Why must the Universe have been created by something? Surely this is begging the question, as you're building into your initial assumptions the conclusion you wish to demonstrate.

As an atheist, I don't believe the Universe "popped out into existence from absolute nothingness". Any process of 'creation' of the Universe requires time - time being a necessary prerequisite for any process to take place. But time is a component of the Universe, therefore the Universe cannot be preceded by any process. The Universe cannot, therefore, 'come from' or 'pop out of' anything because such an event would require time in order to enable the transition. If no process or cause can proceed time (which they can't, by definition) then the only conclusion is that time is acausal - it is a necessary feature of reality. If time is necessary, then so is space and energy by the Theories of Relativity.

Thus, the essential framework of the Universe is necessarily uncaused.

**جوري** · 05-15-2010

[QUOTE=DuncG;1327411]

[B]τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

The probability of life arising given the Universe is suitable for and capable of sustaining life wasn't one of the probabilities that I was directly addressing. This is because it is currently unknown as to whether the Universe is finite or infinite in spatial extent. If infinite, then the probability of life arising in a Universe that allows it tends to unity. If finite, we then need to compare the probability of life arising as a function of the available volume and time. Until this issue is addressed I cannot see how arguments for the probability of life arising are relevant - they appear to be jumping the gun.

We are talking about the probability of life on Earth not life in the universe, I don't see why this isn't a valid argument. The earth hasn't always been in existence and neither has the life form on it as we know it today, as such the argument provided in the paper is not only valid, but one of the most scientifically sound I have come across. You have many theories floating around and this takes care of the more finite details of one of the proposed hypothesis.. You can't simply dismiss it because you feel that the original theory is no longer valid.. for perhaps indeed that is was the scientist in the paper set out to accomplish whether or not he succeeded-- there is no jumping the gun, there is taking the observational to the experimental!

all the best

**Ramadhan** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by Skavau

No it isn't.

You speak about others not understanding the concept of God in Islam and then go and make inaccurate claims like that. Find me a single atheist that has directly said that the universe "popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself".

sis Lily has pointed out that there is actually an atheist (Lynx) who has directly said that it is logical and consistent that the universe popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself.

And if you don't believe that, then the only other alternative for you is that you believe that the universe is eternal, which is even more silly as the universe has been proven to have a beginning.

**Ramadhan** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by DuncG

naidamar,

Why must the Universe have been created by something? Surely this is begging the question, as you're building into your initial assumptions the conclusion you wish to demonstrate.

As an atheist, I don't believe the Universe "popped out into existence from absolute nothingness". Any process of 'creation' of the Universe requires time - time being a necessary prerequisite for any process to take place. But time is a component of the Universe, therefore the Universe cannot be preceded by any process. The Universe cannot, therefore, 'come from' or 'pop out of' anything because such an event would require time in order to enable the transition. If no process or cause can proceed time (which they can't, by definition) then the only conclusion is that time is acausal - it is a necessary feature of reality. If time is necessary, then so is space and energy by the Theories of Relativity.

Your theory has a giant hole staring at you (I bolded the part).
You can't say that the "process" of the creation of the universe requires time, as time was created when the universe came into existence. So the rest of your theory falls apart.

Thus, the essential framework of the Universe is necessarily uncaused.

Interesting that you went through all those verbal acrobat to admit, that yes, something uncaused has caused the Universe.
I'm glad that you stop short from saying the universe itself is uncaused.
For the believers, "the essential framework" is God.

**DuncG** · 05-15-2010

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

My post to Qatada was responding directly to his third point in the OP in which he specifically talks about the Universe containing life. I am thus addressing the probabilities relating to life existing in the Universe, not specifically to life on Earth.

I'd be happy to talk with you about the speculation surrounding abiogenesis on Earth, but I'd rather bring the topic at hand to some form of conclusion before diverging into other subjects.

**DuncG** · 05-15-2010

Naidamar,

I can say the process of 'creation' requires time because all processes are of some duration. Your critique of this position:

... as time was created when the universe came into existence.

is self-contradictory because you are referring to a point in time at which time was supposed to be brought into existence. Time cannot already exist to provide a point in time when time is supposed to be created. Your use of the phrase 'came into' is also temporally-based, implying that there was a previous state from which the Universe came where there was no time - this is impossible, you cannot have a previous state before time because there is no time to transition you to the point where time 'begins'.

In addition, I didn't stop short of saying the Universe is uncaused. The 'essential framework' is space-time and energy/matter - which are all flip-sides of each other as demonstrated by Einstein. If one is necessary (uncaused), which time is, then all are. The Universe is thus uncaused.

**جوري** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by DuncG

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

My post to Qatada was responding directly to his third point in the OP in which he specifically talks about the Universe containing life. I am thus addressing the probabilities relating to life existing in the Universe, not specifically to life on Earth.

I'd be happy to talk with you about the speculation surrounding abiogenesis on Earth, but I'd rather bring the topic at hand to some form of conclusion before diverging into other subjects.

If you wanted to address Qatada's post then you shouldn't have quoted my article with intent on discrediting it? what say you?

all the best

**Ramadhan** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by DuncG

Naidamar,

I can say the process of 'creation' requires time because all processes are of some duration. Your critique of this position:

is self-contradictory because you are referring to a point in time at which time was supposed to be brought into existence. Time cannot already exist to provide a point in time when time is supposed to be created. Your use of the phrase 'came into' is also temporally-based, implying that there was a previous state from which the Universe came where there was no time - this is impossible, you cannot have a previous state before time because there is no time to transition you to the point where time 'begins'.

It is not impossible if something uncaused created the universe.

In addition, I didn't stop short of saying the Universe is uncaused. The 'essential framework' is space-time and energy/matter - which are all flip-sides of each other as demonstrated by Einstein. If one is necessary (uncaused), which time is, then all are. The Universe is thus uncaused.

Einstein himself has admitted that the universe has beginning, and GR plus quantum mechanics have proved that time and space could not exist beyond "big bang".
And no matter how many times you scream "the Universe is uncaused" does not make it true.

**DuncG** · 05-15-2010

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

It would have been impolite of me to ignore you, especially as you'd gone to the trouble of researching a paper to introduce.

Take care.

**Lynx** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Allah and God are the same thing.. Arabic ( a Semitic ancient language) was there before English, certainly if you survey Arab christians/Jews then the term they use to refer to 'God' sans the Jesus fiasco the difference is, the unique attribute in Arabic can't be made plural or feminine or engendered in general like we see in English (gods, goddess) etc.! .. certainly one can invoke God by many of his names which are in fact his attributes (which should take care of the questions of our dear friend pyg) who spent almost half a decade on this forum and still has no clue what it is that Muslims believe in--

You do realize that if God were proven to exist it would not prove that the Islamic God exists, right? You do realize that Allah refers to a particular God even if the word 'Allah' means just God, right? So if it were proven that God exists it does not automatically follow that Allah of the Quran exists. That is why I said even at best, the argument proposed by the OP only shows *something* started the universe. It would require going beyond the scope of the OP to prove that something* was God and it would require even more argument that this God was the God of the Quran (which if it were true, would be contradictory to many other Gods); OP is a lost cause.

Now, I keep asking you to bring forth those 'infinite possibilities' so we can discuss them.. There is no point to simply keep repeating 'There are infinite possibilities' -- Yes would you like to expound on that picture so we can see whether or not God fits into the scheme of things or some aliens from a distant planet or that we are living in someone's dream hoping s/he won't wake up? I keep emphasizing that nothing comes out of nothing as is clearly evident, so your point has no physical palpable truth unless you simply enjoy semantics but not common sense?

Well it's impossible to write out every member of an infinite set I think! But let's start here: why is it more plausible that the universe was created by God versus the universe was poofed into existence out of nothing or it was created by some kind of super blob

Edit: remember, logic has shown us that it is not self-evident that something out of nothing is absurd.

There is no point to discuss 'which religion' when you haven't established the truth of God!.. you do understand that some questions can't be answered until part one of the equation is answered? To give an analogy, you can't say because you've come across a case or a distant relative with hepatitis and Aids that I can't treat this patient with lamivudine because he is on epivir when you don't know whether the etiology of his scleral icterus and tiredness is due to Hep A, B, C, D, E, cholecystitis, cholangitis, choledocholithiasis, pancreatic cancer, dubin-Johnson syndrome, Rotor syndrome, crigler najjar, or a simple case of gilbert? Do we understand each other?.. I find that carpet bombing non-systematic approach boring and a waste of time in any field and shows your lack of scholarship.. sort of like the 'logic' that you through around without establishing a relationship between it and what you are arguing against! It just tells me you've browsed through google under Gods to see what came up to pad your point of view with absolute crap!

The relationship between the 'logic I throw(?) around" and what I argue against is clear for anyone with a basic understanding of logic.

'I don't know' sounds meek not humble! What we have certainly seen from atheists is a far cry from humble or meek even-- more of a vocal and pompous response that hardly concedes to 'I don't know' -- 'I don't know' merely comes out when an inquisitive query is made of proposed hypotheses to be supported by experimental results!

hmm, okay that seems exactly why people are saying I don't know to this question.

**Lynx** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by naidamar

sis Lily has pointed out that there is actually an atheist (Lynx) who has directly said that it is logical and consistent that the universe popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself.

And if you don't believe that, then the only other alternative for you is that you believe that the universe is eternal, which is even more silly as the universe has been proven to have a beginning.

Sis Lily doesn't actually read the posts she responds to...which is why she says the things she does.

You actually read my post which is great. What you should have asked is what logically consistent meant. It means, in a philosophical sense (as per the OP's argument) a proposition that is not inherently absurd (i.e., by its logical form). I have explained why it isn't and what this implies in previous posts.

**جوري** · 05-15-2010

Originally Posted by Lynx

You do realize that if God were proven to exist it would not prove that the Islamic God exists, right?

Do you have other avenues to introduce to this topic?

You do realize that Allah refers to a particular God even if the word 'Allah' means just God, right?

and again I ask what other god can there be?

So if it were proven that God exists it does not automatically follow that Allah of the Quran exists. That is why I said even at best, the argument proposed by the OP only shows *something* started the universe. It would require going beyond the scope of the OP to prove that something* was God and it would require even more argument that this God was the God of the Quran (which if it were true, would be contradictory to many other Gods); OP is a lost cause.

And as such I have stated there is no point for further discussion if you can't prove to yourself that there is God.. I have already given quite an extensive analogy on the subject before and so hate to repeat myself, even if that is all you have to offer, hammering it two or three times won't yield a different response!

Well it's impossible to write out every member of an infinite set I think! But let's start here: why is it more plausible that the universe was created by God versus the universe was poofed into existence out of nothing or it was created by some kind of super blob

Blobs would yield blobs .. can you do better perhaps than blob or 'infinite possibilities' if you desired a civilized dialogue?

The relationship between the 'logic I throw(?) around" and what I argue against is clear for anyone with a basic understanding of logic.

If you were clear then you would be able to defend it not abandon it!

hmm, okay that seems exactly why people are saying I don't know to this question.

Indeed but only after an ineffectual circuitous debate!

all the best

**DuncG** · 05-15-2010

Naidamar,

Well, I've put forward an argument that makes it explicitly clear that it is impossible for the Universe to be created. I don't see how asserting that it's not impossible actually addresses the argument. You've put forward one critique and I've replied with a counter-criticism. Please don't accuse me of just asserting that 'the Universe is uncaused' when it's the conclusion derived from an argument. If parts of the argument are not clear, then let me know and I'll see if I can rephrase it.

Einstein himself has admitted that the universe has beginning, and GR plus quantum mechanics have proved that time and space could not exist beyond "big bang".

And I don't disagree with that (although I would put beginning in inverted commas as a space-time boundary is qualitatively different to the other kind of beginnings embedded in space-time) - the recognition that space-time has a boundary at a finite point in the past is a key condition to my argument.