Going on to the followup question – is the universe created or eternal?
POI asserts it is eternal:
POI wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 11:26 pm 4) POI – Real Natural/Materialistic Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and has always existed in one form or another, as matter/material can neither be created nor destroyed; and all changes not demonstrated to be done directly by naturalistic and/or material minds have and do happen by way of natural processes alone.
POI wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 2:38 pm 1) Is it possible our known universe is eternal? If not, why not? I’m not sure if I’ve already offered the video, regarding this explanation about the possibility of our universe being eternal? Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist and philosopher, explains it much better than I can.
2) Also, if the scientific principle is true, that (paraphrased) – “matter can neither be created nor destroyed“, then the concept to instead invent a ‘creator God’ then may become a non-starter?
What I claim is both science and the Bible support the position the universe had a beginning and was created.
The universe either had a beginning and is a finite age or it is eternal and an infinite age. All major sources point to a finite age of the universe:
According to NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe project, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion (13,700,000,000) years old—plus or minus 200 million years. (The NASA satellite, launched in 2001, measures the temperature of radiant heat remaining from the big bang.)
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-an … e-universe
The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.77 billion years[14] of cosmological time. This model is well understood theoretically and strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP. In contrast, theories of the origin of the primordial state remain very speculative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
with advances in technology and the development of new techniques we now know the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 200 million years.
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/f … r/age.html
Scientists’ best estimate is that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1149923#p1149923
POI wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 10:25 am
To a theoretical physicist, your question might be malformed.
https://shorturl.at/FEpnp
Actually, it is your video that presented the malformed question, which I never had asked – what was before the Big Bang? Of course there was no “before” the Big Bang because our time started with the BB, therefore there was no “before” since there was no time in existence.
The main question I’m asking now is – is the universe finite in age or is it eternal?
I’ve already presented evidence it is finite in age. However, you have stated it is eternal:
POI wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 11:26 pm 4) POI – Real Natural/Materialistic Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and has always existed in one form or another, as matter/material can neither be created nor destroyed; and all changes not demonstrated to be done directly by naturalistic and/or material minds have and do happen by way of natural processes alone.
Again, on what evidence can you provide that it is eternal?
What do you mean by “created”? Do you mean created from a) ex materia <or> b) ex nihilo? I’m assuming you mean b)?
Further, wouldn’t a more befitting starting question instead be, did this “universe” have a beginning or not? And even if this universe had a true beginning, that still does not imply b).
If the universe is finite in age, then it would have been created somehow. How did it arise? It’d have to have some origin that is not part of our universe. It cannot have been self-caused. So, from our perspective, it would be an ex nihilo creation.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1150137#p1150137
Here’s what he said:
1:25
In quantum mechanics is there a Big Bang singularity before which there was nothing. And the answer is honestly we don’t know.1:32
We have models, we have theories that either have the Big Bang as the beginning or the Big Bang is just a phase the universe goes through. There could be an earlier phase of the universe. The universe could have been contracting and collapsing and then bounced back into what we think of as the Big Bang. Or there could have been a completely different universe almost unrelated to ours.
As typical, the answer given is “we don’t know”. Just like in basic philosophical questions that non-Christians have no answers for, we also see cosmologists have no answer to the age or origin of the universe.
The issue is more “I don’t want to know” rather than “I don’t know”. People reject any idea that something might confirm the Bible, so they’d rather plead ignorance rather than confirm the Bible.
The honest answer is, NO ONE KNOWS YET FOR SURE? At present, the hunch is ‘eternal’. But not a baseless hunch. but instead, an informed hunch based upon discovery and inference. (i.e.):
Again, I’m asking for evidence, not what is your hunch. If you have no evidence the universe is eternal, then is it based on faith? What exactly are you referring to when you say discovery and inference?
Anybody can come up with a model. But what I’m asking for is evidence, which I don’t see any in that article.
Here’s what the article states:
The idea is that the universe is actually eternal. It existed at all times, so there is no beginning to explain.
The theory of eternal inflation says that once inflation starts, it never completely stops. Rather, it ends in places, and universes form there. We call them pocket universes because they’re not everything that exists. We are living in one of these pocket universes. And even though the pocket universes keep forming, there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession.
Each individual pocket universe will presumably ultimately die, in the sense that it will run out of energy and cool down. But in the big picture of all the pocket universes, life would not only go on eternally, but there’d be more and more of it every instant.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/custo … big-ideas/
Does he actually present any evidence? I don’t see any.
I find it very ironic scientists can continually come up with ad hoc ideas to support their naturalistic presupposition – dark matter, cosmic inflation, multiverse, and now eternal inflation. Is there any way we can detect any of these things? No. The idea of a multiverse even throws out what does it mean for something to be natural.
Of course. I already stated this at the outset:
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1150245#p1150245
If there’s only two options on the table:
1. God did it
2. I don’t know
and the evidence and arguments support (1), then (1) is an entirely reasonable position to hold.
Getting off my soapbox now.
Going off on a diatribe is not providing a rational defense of your position that the universe is eternal. At this point, we’ll have to conclude there is no evidence to support the position that the universe is eternal, but only based on a “hunch”.
Since the universe is finite in age, then it must have a cause. It cannot have been self-caused, so some external agent must have caused the universe. At this point, this external agent can be a generic god, could be a Deist God or a Theist God. But at a minimum, we know such a god has the ability to create a universe.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1150346#p1150346
POI wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 11:02 am Seems you apply a double standard. Just as we have no empirical evidence for the ‘universe’ (yet), you admit we have no empirical evidence for a god(s) (yet). Yet, ‘science’ follows the evidence where it leads, which currently provides inference(s) to suggest the universe is eternal. Hence, according to your own standard, stating the universe is eternal would be a reasonable position for ‘science’ to hold. Why is this methodology NOT good enough for “science”, regarding the “universe”, but IS good enough for otseng, regarding “god”?
The charge of a double standard does not apply to me. As a matter of fact, you’re affirming my position that it is entirely reasonable to use inference and conclusions do not have to be limited by direct observation or measurements. The charge of a double standard would be to those that deny the possibility God can exist because we cannot directly see or measure God.
Your claim then is basically that all of ‘science’ is in cahoots and is in pure denial to an actual reality. Meaning, they see the true writing on the wall -> an invisible and supernatural agency is the cause. Scientific inference(s) are really leading them to an invisible supernatural agency out there somewhere, and they opt to all collectively ignore it.
Science is a valuable tool, but it is not the end all to know reality. Because one of its basic assumptions is the supernatural cannot be entertained, it totally discounts God as a possible explanation. But what we see is there are many areas where science cannot explain something (like the origin of the universe) and is stuck with “I don’t know” since it automatically rules out God.
The way I see it, all of the onion layers have been peeled back. The purpose of this entire topic has been revealed. Using my inference here, your position looks to hold that anyone who’s own inference(s) do not lead them to a (god), regarding the (yet-to-be-discovered) topics you list, is instead purely in denial, as evidence by your quoted statement above.
The purpose of this topic is addressing original question: “Is it possible our known universe is eternal? If not, why not?”
Why is this question even posed and you fail to provide any support for it? What exactly is your intention in stating this?
Alternatively, ‘I don’t know’ is a rational and reasonable position for ‘science’ to hold and is not instead one of denial and/or (self)deception.
Would “I don’t know” be accepted by a skeptic to be a rational and reasonable position if a Christian said this to defend their belief in God or the Bible? I highly doubt it. Who then would be the one to have a double standard?
Then I guess ‘science’ is in cahoots, and in complete denial.
It is not “science” that is in denial, but people who appeal to “science” as a way to reject God.
“Armchair philosophy” is not going to solve the not-yet-solved, but it’s likely “science” will.
That’s a lot of faith in the science of the gaps. But, my bet is science will never be able to explain the origin of the universe. And I would also add that if science is able to provide a viable naturalistic explanation, then it’ll falsify the Bible for me. And I’m willing to wager this forum on the bet and shut it down when that day comes.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1150426#p1150426
If the universe is finite in age, then it began to exist. The only other option is the universe is eternal. What other option is there?
The problem with the Kalam is that it relies on the scientific opinions of Christians, (the Friedman-Lemaitre model)) so is based primarily on opinions of scientists who have been influenced by the idea that “There exists a creator (God) and God is immaterial”.
The only thing claimed is God is not materially part of this universe. This is opposed to pantheism where God and the universe is the same thing.
“pantheism is the view that the Universe (in the sense of the totality of all existence) and God are identical”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1150428#p1150428
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 1:56 am The real options here are:
The stuff from which the universe was made already existed
The stuff from which the universe was made began to exist.
Yes. And so there’s two fundamental options to allow for this – either the universe is eternal in age or it is finite in age.
Theism rules out a natural cause with various verbal tricks like ‘Nothing comes from nothing’ which is arguable, as virtual particles shows that the basic stuff can come from a nothing as much nothinglike to not need creating.
Actually, theism doesn’t rule out anything. Something can be explained naturalistically or it can be explained supernaturalistically. It would be the skeptics that are ruling out possible explanations because they automatically rule out the supernatural.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1150429#p1150429