[_ Old Earth _] Why Not An Eternal Universe?

[BradtheImpaler]

Is there a scientific, philosophical, or logical problem with the possibility that the universe itself is eternal? If believers in God have a problem with this, don't they have the same problem with maintaining that God is eternal? I think most people would agree it only makes sense that someone or something had to have always been there, so why would it make less sense than belief in an eternal God that the universe itself, in perhaps ever changing forms, had no beginning?

 

[ArtGuy]

Going with the science angle, we know that the universe had a distinct beginning, so it's not "eternal" in the sense that it's always existed. The problem is in the definition of "universe". It's generally defined to mean something along the lines of "the set of all things in the universe that can, or ever have been able to, interact with one another." Anything that existed prior to the Big Bang is something that we can never know about, because it's forever separated from us by a singularity. If there was something prior to that, it would effectively be a different universe. In that sense, there may be other universes; perhaps an infinite number of other universes. But we'll never be able to interact with them.

Theologically speaking, the problem with claiming the universe will never end is that the Bible specifically claims it will. While we don't know when or how, it seems a safe bet that the Bible means to say that someday, all this will be over, and a new universe will begin that consists of paradise. It's possible, of course, that ours is not the first such universe. Perhaps God is creating universes all the time, and keeps ushering in new legions of immortal souls into his paradise. It's impossible to say, but it makes for interesting speculation.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Going with the science angle, we know that the universe had a distinct beginning, so it's not "eternal" in the sense that it's always existed. The problem is in the definition of "universe". It's generally defined to mean something along the lines of "the set of all things in the universe that can, or ever have been able to, interact with one another." Anything that existed prior to the Big Bang is something that we can never know about, because it's forever separated from us by a singularity. If there was something prior to that, it would effectively be a different universe. In that sense, there may be other universes; perhaps an infinite number of other universes. But we'll never be able to interact with them.

Theologically speaking, the problem with claiming the universe will never end is that the Bible specifically claims it will. While we don't know when or how, it seems a safe bet that the Bible means to say that someday, all this will be over, and a new universe will begin that consists of paradise. It's possible, of course, that ours is not the first such universe. Perhaps God is creating universes all the time, and keeps ushering in new legions of immortal souls into his paradise. It's impossible to say, but it makes for interesting speculation.

Okay, let's put any different universe or previous universe under the category of "THE Universe". What I'm getting at is isn't it just as possible that matter/energy/"whatever kind of reality there may be outside of the theological assumption of Spirit and God" could have ALWAYS existed? Perhaps the sum total of reality has been "Big Banging" and then condensing and then exploding again every 15 billion years or so forever? Why would we need to postulate an eternal God as creating the universe (in whatever form) when we can just as easily imagine* a universe that had no beginning?

*of course this is not "easily imagined", the whole proposition is incomprehensible to us, that ANYTHING could be eternal, never having a beginning, but my question is relative - if SOMETHING had to have always been there, why couldn't it have been some-THING instead of some - ONE? The idea of a creator God solves where the universe came from, but it doesn't solve where GOD came from, so it's really not a better answer, it just provides an alternate eternal candidate. We are still saddled with the enigma of "no beginning".

 

[reznwerks]

simplify

Let me try to simplify what you are asking. Why isn't it reasonable to accept a universe that always existed when theists can readily accept the idea that God always existed? After all we know the universe exists but we have no evidence of a God and even less of any intentions of this unproven entity.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Re: simplify

Let me try to simplify what you are asking. Why isn't it reasonable to accept a universe that always existed when theists can readily accept the idea that God always existed? After all we know the universe exists but we have no evidence of a God and even less of any intentions of this unproven entity.

Exactly ;-)

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: simplify

Let me try to simplify what you are asking. Why isn't it reasonable to accept a universe that always existed when theists can readily accept the idea that God always existed? After all we know the universe exists but we have no evidence of a God and even less of any intentions of this unproven entity.

Exactly ;-)

Accepting that the universe has always existed isn't logically problematic, though you'd need to come up with a plausibly mechanism by which the universe could've been its own first cause. The problem of self-causation in the case of God is answered by the supposition that God is omnipotent, and thus willing Himself into existence is not beyond His powers.

 

[dad]

Re: simplify

....

Accepting that the universe has always existed isn't logically problematic, though you'd need to come up with a plausibly mechanism by which the universe could've been its own first cause. The problem of self-causation in the case of God is answered by the supposition that God is omnipotent, and thus willing Himself into existence is not beyond His powers.

Ridiculous. The universe we know did not exist as long as God. He made it in a week! How He came to be or always was is simply way beyond our ability to comprehend. He existed before He started to create, He didn't create Himself in creation week.
Trying to judge all by our current temporary reality and universe is absurd.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Re: simplify

Accepting that the universe has always existed isn't logically problematic, though you'd need to come up with a plausibly mechanism by which the universe could've been its own first cause

Why would it need a cause, though? If it had a cause called "God" what was God's cause?

The problem of self-causation in the case of God is answered by the supposition that God is omnipotent, and thus willing Himself into existence is not beyond His powers

Christians, Jews, Moslems don't believe that God "caused" Himself, they believe He was always there. Again, why can't the universe have been always there?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Re: simplify

Ridiculous. The universe we know did not exist as long as God. He made it in a week! How He came to be or always was is simply way beyond our ability to comprehend. He existed before He started to create, He didn't create Himself in creation week.
Trying to judge all by our current temporary reality and universe is absurd.

My appreciation to the "Thought Police" :bday: for that illuminating rebuke, but some of us have read the book and still feel there are questions to be asked.

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: simplify

Christians, Jews, Moslems don't believe that God "caused" Himself, they believe He was always there. Again, why can't the universe have been always there?

The problem comes with trying to understand the notion of "always" in an extratemporal sense. Time is a fundamental part of our universe. It was created when the universe was created. "Always", when divorced from our universe, stops really making sense. So even if God poofed himself into existence at the same time he created the universe, one could state that God has always existed. He's existed as long as there has been time - it's just that time was created at the same point at which God was created.

This is why when cosmology meets theology, strange things happen.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Re: simplify

The problem comes with trying to understand the notion of "always" in an extratemporal sense. Time is a fundamental part of our universe. It was created when the universe was created. "Always", when divorced from our universe, stops really making sense. So even if God poofed himself into existence at the same time he created the universe, one could state that God has always existed. He's existed as long as there has been time - it's just that time was created at the same point at which God was created.

This is why when cosmology meets theology, strange things happen.

This is interesting, Artguy. I've never heard of anyone believing that God in some way created Himself. Is this your personal belief or is it just a possibility you consider?

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: simplify

The problem comes with trying to understand the notion of "always" in an extratemporal sense. Time is a fundamental part of our universe. It was created when the universe was created. "Always", when divorced from our universe, stops really making sense. So even if God poofed himself into existence at the same time he created the universe, one could state that God has always existed. He's existed as long as there has been time - it's just that time was created at the same point at which God was created.

This is why when cosmology meets theology, strange things happen.

This is interesting, Artguy. I've never heard of anyone believing that God in some way created Himself. Is this your personal belief or is it just a possibility you consider?

Little of both. I don't think it's really possible to know for certain, but the idea has a certain philosophical simplicity to it. It avoids the apparent oddity of the idea that God existed for an infinite number of years before bothering to create a universe in which to play about. It basically supposes that God exists outside of time, so as far as we can comprehend, he just sort of popped into existence at the same point that he created the universe.

I could be completely wrong, of course. But I sort of like the idea, and there's no real Biblical argument against it.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Re: simplify

Little of both. I don't think it's really possible to know for certain, but the idea has a certain philosophical simplicity to it. It avoids the apparent oddity of the idea that God existed for an infinite number of years before bothering to create a universe in which to play about. It basically supposes that God exists outside of time, so as far as we can comprehend, he just sort of popped into existence at the same point that he created the universe.

I could be completely wrong, of course. But I sort of like the idea, and there's no real Biblical argument against it.

If God exists "outside of time", however, what is the problem with Him existing "an infinite number of years" before doing anything? There would be no "years". I think there's even more of a logical problem with God or the universe "popping into existence" with no cause. I can logically swallow someone or something always having existed rather than coming into existence with no cause. If it has always existed it seems to need less of a cause, since logic also seems to dictate that something had to have always been there?