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

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.

Hello.

Your assumption that God must be the necessary component 'starting' everything is unwarranted. Anything could have started it all not just God. The universe could have just popped out of nowhere for all we know. That is totally consistent and logical.

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.

I kind of get what you're trying to do here; you seem to be saying that after many tries of failed universes in a multiverse one eventually has to appear that has life out of statistical necessity but since this is the only unvierse and it has life then this is even greater evidence that our universe is miraculous. This seems to me that you're Begging the Question. You need to provide an argument as to why life existing in this universe, even if this is the only universe, is miraculous; you can't just assume that it is. So my reply would be that even if this is the only unvierse, life existing is not miraculous. Your argument only takes into account one possible objection to the anthropic principle.

William Dembski is a fraud, Qatada - who wouldn't defend intelligent design in the US courts.

And just on this single point

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.

Yes, this does defy logic. You spend the first part of your argument stating how it is impossible for the universe to be infinite because of the alleged implausibility infinite regression, and then you go on to directly state that God is himself infinite. It is making allowances for your belief.

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.

You seem to be using 'miraculous' in an arbitrary way. A 'miracle' tends to refer to something consider good that happened in spite of the laws of the universe. You haven't presented any evidence that our existence was otherwise impossible barring supernatural intervention.

If someone can help , I want just to ask if there is other arguments supporting the big-bang theory other than the simple argument of observated expansion. I mean what make us sure that this expansion movement is definetely caused by a "bang", not other causes. In Islam also, there's nothing mentionning an explosion or something like that during creation. But scientifically speaking, is it necessary that we are originated from one tiny point (that has no dimensions) having as big density as the universe : is that possible ?

format_quote Originally Posted by marwen

If someone can help , I want just to ask if there is other arguments supporting the big-bang theory other than the simple argument of observated expansion. I mean what make us sure that this expansion movement is definetely caused by a "bang", not other causes. In Islam also, there's nothing mentionning an explosion or something like that during creation. But scientifically speaking, is it necessary that we are originated from one tiny point (that has no dimensions) having as big density as the universe : is that possible ?

Allah created the universe, QS. 6:101

He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth.

QS. 21:30

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and We made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?

so, from this verse we know that the universe was a singularity. And,
QS. 51:47

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

From the above verse we know that the universe is expanding, and it will end in a big crunch according the following verse, and will be regenerated.

QS. 21:104

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx

Hello.

Your assumption that God must be the necessary component 'starting' everything is unwarranted. Anything could have started it all not just God. The universe could have just popped out of nowhere for all we know. That is totally consistent and logical.

How so, do you know of everyday things that pop out of nowhere and take form and action, and find that consistent with logic? I keep waiting for mini-fridge to pop in the hallways and fill itself with drinks and mixed nuts.. how long do you suppose I have to wait for that?

life existing is not miraculous.

In fact it is!..

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Allah created the universe, QS. 6:101

He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth.

QS. 21:30

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and We made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?

so, from this verse we know that the universe was a singularity. And,
QS. 51:47

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

From the above verse we know that the universe is expanding, and it will end in a big crunch according the following verse, and will be regenerated.

QS. 21:104

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.

Thanks bro naidamar for the explanation. Yes this can be a sign about the beginning and the "end" of the universe. Many scholars used these verses to refer to the big-bang story. But that's not really convincing. It can be another form of creation other than the big-bang event. Allah doesn't need a big bang to create the universe. Proving the B.B is true or false does not change anything about our belief that Allah created the universe. Why should we make the big bang theory the only possible form of the creation.

another verse in the quran says :

YUNUS(010):003
"Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things. No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained). This is Allah your Lord; Him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition?"

And in surat Fussilat (ayat 9-10-11-12) :

041.09
Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
041.10
He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).
041.11
Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
041.12
So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

So Allah created the universe in 6 days (though he can do it in one second), and every day or every 2 days, he created one part of the universe. How can this be explaned by the big-bang theory which can be triggered in just 1 instant, and the resulting process can last for millions of years before the appearance of planets and life.

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

How so, do you know of everyday things that pop out of nowhere and take form and action, and find that consistent with logic? I keep waiting for mini-fridge to pop in the hallways and fill itself with drinks and mixed nuts.. how long do you suppose I have to wait for that?

In fact it is!..

all the best

Consistent with logic has a different meaning than what is physically possible. There are 3 laws in logic: law of identity (a=a), law of excluded middle (a or not a) and law of contradiction (not-a & a). The proposition that something can pop into existence out of no where does not violate any of these laws of logic and it is therefore entirely logically possible. In other words, the claim it is not logical for something to be able to pop into existence out of no where is guilty of the logical fallacy of equivocation where the word logic is being equivocated.

If someone can help , I want just to ask if there is other arguments supporting the big-bang theory other than the simple argument of observated expansion. I mean what make us sure that this expansion movement is definetely caused by a "bang", not other causes. In Islam also, there's nothing mentionning an explosion or something like that during creation. But scientifically speaking, is it necessary that we are originated from one tiny point (that has no dimensions) having as big density as the universe : is that possible ?

i think the main evidence for the big bang theory is the cosmic background radiation.

@ marwen: there are three main observations which supports big bang model.
1- cosmic background radiation
2- composition and ratio of elements in universe
3- Redshift, blueshift i.e. Hubble law.

format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist

@ marwen: there are three main observations which supports big bang model.
1- cosmic background radiation
2- composition and ratio of elements in universe
3- Redshift, blueshift i.e. Hubble law.

redshift as well as extra-galactic radio waves (cosmic radiations) can be explained by the big-bang, as they fit with the big bang model (radiation in every direction), but the Big bang is not the only possible cause of them : http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

But thanks for you and for Lynx, for mentionning the different arguments supporting the B.B

^ the thing is that Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago? Or something like that. Anyways. Universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The verse from Quran Marwen stated, Earth's formation starts even in the first 2 days! So I believe that Quranic verse is not a literal explanation of Big Bang model of creation of universe and planets.

format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless

Is the word days? or periods? Perhaps each period is each thing that happened which led to the creation of the known universe? For example the bang, initial expansion, splitting of force, creation of elements, etc. I'm not saying this interpretation is correct but its an example. At the moment we just don't know what happened in enough detail to be able to say what the 6 periods mean for sure.

The word used in quran is 6 Days. But yes, the interpretation of Day can be different whether it's from Allah's perspective or from our perspective, because Allah is not constrained by time. Yes what you said can be a possible interpretation of the verses, although the islamic works I read used the normal "day" period (24H) to interpret these verses.

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx

Consistent with logic has a different meaning than what is physically possible. There are 3 laws in logic: law of identity (a=a), law of excluded middle (a or not a) and law of contradiction (not-a & a). The proposition that something can pop into existence out of no where does not violate any of these laws of logic and it is therefore entirely logically possible. In other words, the claim it is not logical for something to be able to pop into existence out of no where is guilty of the logical fallacy of equivocation where the word logic is being equivocated.

If we are to go by the three confines of 'logic' that you've proposed then you need to show me how 'an object is the same as itself' is applicable at all to 'something out of nothing' something out of nothing indeed doesn't violate an object is the same as itself but neither does an anchorites flyfishing on a Saturday you need to establish a relation for us to see the applicability.. something popping into existence out of 'no where' does violate the law of the excluded middle-- either something is true or its negation is.. since none of us have in fact observed or experimentally proved that something comes out of nothing then its opposite is true-- the last law you've proposed is contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously with similar applicability to the previous.. in fact stating that something comes out of nothing is the only fallacy in your writing that avoids an unpleasant truth which is the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that something can and has come out of nothing with respect to physical science without resorting to the incoherent logorrhea of deceased philosophers!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Something equally true, of course, in relation to God. Unless, of course, considerably more 'incoherent logorrhea', not to mention dubious argument, is invoked to generate the usual theist 'get out of jail free card' exempting God from what applies to 'the Universe' and everything else.

I fail to see how given representation encompasses the undefined -- You can't force me to acquiesce to the above given outlines, since not knowing the nature of what you speak of makes everything you come up with on the matter to be based solely on an a priori judgment and thus completely irrelevant-- I can't accept the variables you give or what he gives to since they are based on faith and I agree with you on that front alone!


We have defined what the universe is (to play devil's advocate) but I'd need to know what your definition is of God or your alternative to that before we can continue on the matter... and since there is no common ground between us -- this is the point where we can agree to part ways--There is no 'Get out of jail free card' as far as I am concerned, I have often viewed religion road as a solo journey. The only whammy there is for an atheist, is that, they refuse to accept the possibility of a God, but yet they don't offer an equally reasonable explanation for the world with which they find themselves. Understanding the nature of how something works isn't a substitute for its origins and certainly the variables used for one can't be used for the other!

The thread deals with 'Why I believe as per title' and as such --I only work with the possibility that there is a God since that comes with requirements.. the possibility of No God requires nothing.. If you go to the doctor for a checkup (assuming a common starting point here)-- if you are diagnosed with nothing then no treatment is required.. if you are diagnosed with something serious, then doing nothing can prove detrimental--and it all comes down to telling signs & whether or not you chose to ignore them!

all the best