An eternal universe and the 'special plead' of God [cosmology]

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Okay, to keep this short, I was wondering if anyone had a genuine theory/explanation to this concept I see a lot;

Eternal universe = false, because we need God for the universe to exist
God's existence = He always existed, thus created the universe

There's kind of a...contradiction here? A 'special plead' or exception for God, as I've heard some put it. It's an interesting concept and I wondered if anyone else has put much thought into it.

We say that the universe cannot be infinite or eternal because it needed God to exist, yet we have no explanation for how or when God came into existence.

I'd prefer replies from people who are at least semi-versed in cosmology, so no quoting the bible to base arguments :) (which is funny coming from a Christian)
The meaning of the words and concepts like 'eternal' and 'infinite' are far beyond the intellect of humanity.

An infinite entity cannot be measured, cannot be understood, cannot be quantified. Any attempt to define these terms will fail.

Mankind has no evidence that an infinite entity even exist's. If an infinite entity existed how would we know if it was infinite.

All that happens when people try to insert an infinite concept into an academic discipline. Is the generation of paradoxes.

For example, on a number line there exists two integers and between these two integers. Exists according to mathematics an infinite number of real numbers. The paradox then forms, since the integers represent boundaries for the real numbers. This set of real numbers is a bounded set. Any bounded set cannot be an infinite set.

The paradox.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
We certainly do have evidence for absolute beginning. We also have a lot of evidence that a lot of people simply don't like where the evidence points. ;)
Evidence such as...?

When it comes to cosmology, the line between valid scientific hypothesis and speculative fantasy can get blurry. We can no more prove or disprove a multiverse than we can talking unicorns on a planet in a distant galaxy.
I roughly agree (although proof isn't part of science). Pretty much all scientific theories make untestable predictions - multiverses are speculative (contingent) predictions of successful scientific theories.

If you want to believe in a multiverse, fine, but don't call it science just because 1) it's possible and 2) you like it better than the alternative.
I don't want to believe, nor do I believe, in any particular cosmology - but I find some cosmologies more interesting than others.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I didn't say anything about validity.

But since you mention validity, I do consider that an explanations (hypotheses) about the real world that are based on, and congruent with, successful physical theories, which can be checked for mathematical and physical consistency, and which have some explanatory power, are better (by the criteria for argument to the best explanation) than hypotheses that have no basis in, or congruence with, any successful physical theories, cannot be checked for consistency - not least because they're intrinsically ill-defined and/or inconsistent, which are less parsimonious, which have no explanatory power, and which raise many more unanswerable questions than they answer. YMMV.

Agreed.

No, they don't; this has been explained more than once.

I'm afraid that we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

If they're indistinguishable mathematically, then Occam's Razor applies. You could change the name if it makes you happy, but a supernatural ontology is redundant.

It seems to me that the current cosmological model offers no explanation of where the various metaphysical items and processes come from to start with, whereas a simple renaming of the various metaphysical items offers such an explanation (albeit leaving the origination of "God" unexplained. Positing the existence of a living 'creator' seems like the *least* metaphysical part of the whole "big bang" claim. We already know that living things do exist in nature. It might also help to explain the 'miracle" of why the whole near singularity thingy didn't just instantly implode.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
We certainly do have evidence for absolute beginning. We also have a lot of evidence that a lot of people simply don't like where the evidence points. ;)

When it comes to cosmology, the line between valid scientific hypothesis and speculative fantasy can get blurry. We can no more prove or disprove a multiverse than we can talking unicorns on a planet in a distant galaxy. If you want to believe in a multiverse, fine, but don't call it science just because 1) it's possible and 2) you like it better than the alternative.

I'm not sure what you mean by "absolute beginning", but I'd argue that even a "bang" does *not* imply an 'absolute beginning" of anything, save perhaps a "beginning of matter" as we understand matter.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
For example, on a number line there exists two integers and between these two integers. Exists according to mathematics an infinite number of real numbers. The paradox then forms, since the integers represent boundaries for the real numbers. This set of real numbers is a bounded set. Any bounded set cannot be an infinite set.

The paradox.
It's not a paradox; infinite sets can be bounded. For example, the set of all numbers between any two natural numbers is both infinite and bounded (by those natural numbers). Likewise, an infinite series can sum to a finite number.
 
Upvote 0

MoreQuestions

Active Member
Jan 10, 2020
118
27
69
Winson
✟10,716.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Time only exists if you are not light, or are not moving at the exact speed of light, etc, cause time is relative to the speed of light, cause other than that you are light and you are time, or else time does not really exist and is a non-issue since time is all relative to the speed of light, and travel at the exact speed of light (as light), etc...

No one knows what would or might happen if you could go beyond the speed of light, but people like Einstein suggests it's not possible, or at least is inconceivable right now, cause light is time and time is light, etc...

Time would stop or freeze or be non-existent, since it's also a point of view based on travel at the exact speed of light, most don't know what would or could happen if you could go faster than that or beyond it/that, but due to the relative nature or both time and light, we can't even conceive of it being possible right now, cause time is light and light is time, and time is based on the point of view of light moving at the speed of light, etc... Or at least that's all we can see/know right now anyway...

And due to this, all time is also relative to location or where you are at in the universe also, etc...

The fact that we measure distances in "light years", means time is relative to distance between objects, and location and speed/travel in general also, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!
Try raising all this on a science forum.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
If you want to know God, look at Jesus. Jesus is God, the exact radiance, expression and light of God, to the world. One does not have to rely on some mystical induction or revelation. He existed, He lived among us and we witnessed His LIGHT, He died and He rose from the dead. Eye witnesses testified to His miracles and over 500 people saw Him after His death and resurrection and witnessed His ascension.

Why would the Jews of the Old Testament believe in God? Because they experienced His presence, His power, His guidance, His love and forgiveness on a daily basis. He spoke through prophets who gave predictions of future events that played out precisely as they said. The rule was if a so called prophet was misrepresenting God and predicted anything, one thing that did not happen, he was stoned to death. You know the story of Moses. Millions of Israelite slaves were freed from Pharaoh. Why would he do that if he himself did not experience the plagues? So through the generations God blessed them and also punished them. They were the test group, if you will, that was given the LAW and they were the example for the rest of the world, that proved no one could keep the Law. Hence, Jesus was sent to fulfill the LAW for us. Then the gospel spread to the gentiles.

Back to the Spirit. You say there is a weak definition. Well, God made man in His image. What does that mean? It is not physical, it is invisible, which means He gave man will, emotions, a mind and each unique in his own way in that we have different talents, abilities, intelligence - all gifts from God. The mind, emotions and will are what is called the soul. The soul is not exactly the same as the spirit. Animals have souls. So God separates us from the animals by giving us a spirit, a compartment of our soul (highly integrated by the way) which is either dead to God or made alive in Christ. We are born with a dead spirit because of the original sin. It just means we are separated from God. Like a cell phone without a battery, but not quite though, because an unbeliever can still speak to God, they just don't get a clear signal, it's confused, static, distorted or nothing at all. And sometimes they are evil thoughts or ideas as well, which we need to learn how to filter out. Let me say this, that all your thoughts are not self generated. You can get them from reading, listening to someone else, deductive or inductive reasoning as it may be; but also you can receive them from God. He guides us, tells us what we ought to do, go this way, do that and if we don't listen to that first intuitive voice, we screw up. One sometimes argues with this in his own mind, conflicting thoughts, torn in different directions, we resist them or dismiss them. Why? These thoughts and ideas, sometimes new and profound come from outside us, from God or our enemy, Satan.
As you said, we need more than inner revelation. It's true, if people did not get more than intuitions in the past, then it would be understandable why some don't believe. Prophecy is one proof to God's existence, that future events came to be with hair-splitting accuracy. Eye witness accounts of angels, miracles and of course Jesus is evidence. Evidence of His design is all around us. This natural world did not design itself through a mindless series of nature selecting mutations (defects), from slime to Marilyn Monroe - sure.
Back to the soul (mind, emotions, will). There are invisible attributes that are not physical. Your mind, will and emotions are not physical. They are expressed in the physical realm, but when you die, you leave your body and they go with you. As someone said, you can't dissect a brain and see thoughts, ideas, talents, memories. All you see is flesh, blood, chemicals. The mind uses the brain to function in this realm and so a thought is sent by neurotransmitters through the body.
Now the spirit is a special compartment of the soul that is empty when we are born. It needs to be quickened, enlightened, recharged, if you will, by God. And then, something wonderful happens, He takes up residence within our spirit. He prepares you for a divine appointment through a series of events and people that come into your life and His power draws you to Himself. You cannot do this on your own. This is why a Christian can say, I was blind but now I see. He gives us spiritual vision that you CANNOT attain by leaning on your own understanding. Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father unless the Father draws him." Here is a list of fruit of the Spirit which grows in the individual as God prepares you and after you are enlightened, continues. Love, joy, peace, hope, faith, goodness, kindness, patience, self control. These are not physical in nature, they are expressed in many ways outwardly but they are not chemicals that you can take. If that were so, we would have found them and could all give the world then and get along perfectly. No, sin is the problem that keeps us from getting along. It is missing the mark, what doesn't work, a rebelliousness against God and people as well. We all are sinners, we lie, steal, covet, etc.
You don't need to look out there in space for answers. The universe is quite simple compared to this incredible body, soul and spirit that we possess. I always say look at the fetus from conception to nine months later, how it develops. Do the cells communicate with each other, do they have a head foreman that says okay, we have many systems to build simultaneously with intricate organs, fibers, cells all contingent on each other to work ... so if you have any questions, refer to the code. NO, they would be pretty smart cells - smarter than Einstein. This life growth process does not happen by itself. Life is not self generated, or designed by nature, it is created and guided by God
Wow, just a mass of text that question begs throughout and parrots arguments that have no real substance beyond bald assertions based on strawmen of what evolution actually is. To say nothing of the massively circular logic in appealing to the bible's accounts as if they are absolutely reliable

No one claims thoughts are self generated in themselves, they come from our brain as it works, you're overcomplicating things that don't need a complex explanation and oversimplifying that which isn't as simple as you think it is.

What you pretty clearly have done is reduce things to a requirement that some agency and mind be behind everything or it somehow doesn't make sense, because you can't seem to even comprehend that things could exist in themselves and have a natural progression.

Also, pretty sure you mixed up spirit and soul, general understanding is not that animals have souls, but spirit, an animating force, but not a soul, a consciousness that will persist after death
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
We certainly do have evidence for absolute beginning. We also have a lot of evidence that a lot of people simply don't like where the evidence points. ;)

When it comes to cosmology, the line between valid scientific hypothesis and speculative fantasy can get blurry. We can no more prove or disprove a multiverse than we can talking unicorns on a planet in a distant galaxy. If you want to believe in a multiverse, fine, but don't call it science just because 1) it's possible and 2) you like it better than the alternative.
If you want to present this "evidence" about an absolute beginning, by all means do so, but methinks you're engaging in hyperbole to shut down meaningful discussion, your God just the "best" explanation based on credulity rather than intellectual honesty in regards to questions we can't reasonably have conclusive answers to (pre Big Bang cosmology)

We can falsify a claim about talking unicorns on a distant planet if we specify the planet and the standards for what counts as a talking unicorn; the multiverse would require a larger scale of observation, but it's hardly impossible, while "God" effectively just skims the boundary of credibility by being an agent
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I'd say that depends on the atheist in question. Krauss, Tyson and what I'd call "evangelical atheists" tend to ridicule religion while promoting their own metaphysical mumbo-jumbo as "scientific fact" (which it isn't).

I'm skeptical you understand what scientific fact means, it's not the same as the vernacular use of "fact"



Well, assuming a bang ever even happened, *something* proceeded it What are the logical implications of promoting "space expansion" claims? Already one is offering inference to a physical process that defies experimental laboratory support, now and forever. It's still a leap of faith in what I'd call "metaphysical dogma" which has to be accepted without empirical (experimental) support.

I don't think most people deny that something preceded the big bang, it's that we cannot reasonably observe or investigate prior to that because of the physical limitations involved with a black hole, etc. Scientists are not claiming it as absolute fact, that's the realm of religious claims in regards to the existence of "God", scientific claims are necessarily provisional in nature, not sure you remotely understand the process or the status of claims based in the mountains of evidence we've gained in support of the particular claims rooted in a model called a theory (which is easily misconstrued as just a guess, it's not, scientifically speaking)



I don't personally even assume that a "bang" ever occurred in the first place, let alone that the universe worked differently prior to it. Any concept of God that I personally hold tends to take the form of something akin to Pantheism/Panentheism. From my perspective an intelligent "creator" could chose to create/organize the visible physical universe without necessarily being separate from it.

In short, you just equivocate the universe and God, which doesn't solve the problem, it just shifts the question to "Why conflate the 2 rather than just investigate the universe as is without needless inferences about agency or creation ex nihilo or other such nonsensical ideas?"



True, but take a step back for a second. Any concept of "time" that we (as humans) hold is based on the existence (and movement patterns) of atoms, and light, and objects, none of which *necessarily* existed prior to any sort of "bang" process. I've heard plenty of astronomers/scientists claiming that time didn't exist prior to the bang (not that I believe them). Even the mere existence of pure energy implies the existence of "spacetime" in GR theory.

It kind of did, we don't have a reason to conclude that the big bang was the origin of existence itself because we cannot investigate beyond or outside that except sequentially after the big bang.

Time may have existed, just not as we conceive of it, you're grossly exaggerating claims based on preconceptions that fit the supernatural into things

Where did I imply I didn't believe in spacetime? General relativity doesn't contradict that, it notes variations based on particular factors

I guess my point is that "science" is just as guilty of proposing metaphysical entities/processes that defy empirical experimental support in the lab as any religion. Scientists just tend to clothe their metaphysics in mathematical constructs. Look at Ptolemy for instance. It was bogus nonsense for thousands of years, but the mathematics of Ptolemy sure gave it an air of credibility.

No it isn't, not in the sense that they're dogmatically certain, only that the evidence would point towards it within a cogent system that isn't throwing the rules of physics out the window

Again, science is not a static pool of knowledge, it necessarily builds upon things from before, from Newton to Einstein, etc.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Science can only deal with what can be observed. Observation is the first step in the scientific method; speculation about the unobservable is not.

I'm dealing in science.
Speculation rooted in what we have observed is hardly the same as positing entirely new rules for some entity some call "god". If time and space just adjust in terms of the event horizon of a black hole, etc, that's not the same as saying that they just cease to exist, which is nonsensical.

Science doesn't deal in mere plausibility of an explanation, but whether the evidence supports it, you've failed to demonstrate the validity of a conclusion from particular observations to a particular conclusion from there
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
It seems to me that the current cosmological model offers no explanation of where the various metaphysical items and processes come from to start with, whereas a simple renaming of the various metaphysical items offers such an explanation (albeit leaving the origination of "God" unexplained. Positing the existence of a living 'creator' seems like the *least* metaphysical part of the whole "big bang" claim. We already know that living things do exist in nature. It might also help to explain the 'miracle" of why the whole near singularity thingy didn't just instantly implode.

You're asking for some absolute certainty on fundamental things that are more descriptive than prescriptive in nature. A law of physics is not something that is an ought, it's what we observe about how the universe works.

A creator is the most metaphysical thing you can posit when it's meant to be outside the rules of causality one applies to everything else, it's an exercise in nonsense.

Big Bang didn't literally explode, far as I'm aware in terms of the theory, that was more a figurative turn of phrase, the general idea seems to be an expansion of sorts, rooted in gravity, etc. It's not something so miraculous unless you try to apply purpose and/or agency behind the event itself, which isn't necessary
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It's not a paradox; infinite sets can be bounded. For example, the set of all numbers between any two natural numbers is both infinite and bounded (by those natural numbers). Likewise, an infinite series can sum to a finite number.
No true, that is a paradox. Finite numbers and no matter how many of them there is. Any number of real numbers will always be a finite number.

There is a difference between countable, finite numbers and some fictional number called an infinite number.

A bounded set is always bounded and it cannot be both bounded and unbounded. That is contradicting the definition of a bounded set.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OK - you didn't say which alternative ways you've tried, or how many, but it's necessarily a subjective judgement. Different people will find benefit from the instructions of different lifestyle gurus - for example, some people find that Buddha's instructions on how to live work better for them.

That lifestyle instructions from one particular guru seem to work particularly well, or better than alternatives, for somebody, is the least you would expect - it's memetic selection, instructions that seem effective last the course, the 'outcompete' instructions that seem ineffective.

No doubt; nevertheless, wise lifestyle aphorisms are a low hurdle for ascribing Godhead...

"If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him" - Lin Chi

"It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory" - Bruce Lee
Try and see.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Try and see.
And you still don't seem to want to address the leap in logic you're making between the reliability of particular things someone teaches and the accuracy of other things they claim of a different category entirely. The idea of being compassionate and loving is HARDLY unique to Jesus anyway, the most unique thing Christianity has is the demigod sacrifice for redemption from sin nature that came because the first 2 humans ate a forbidden apple God put in the garden on purpose because plans.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And you still don't seem to want to address the leap in logic you're making between the reliability of particular things someone teaches and the accuracy of other things they claim of a different category entirely. The idea of being compassionate and loving is HARDLY unique to Jesus anyway, the most unique thing Christianity has is the demigod sacrifice for redemption from sin nature that came because the first 2 humans ate a forbidden apple God put in the garden on purpose because plans.
Don't let fear control you.

Find out.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Don't let fear control you.

Find out.
Are you really accusing me of being afraid to try something when my point is that the idea you're positing is such that I've pointed out several times is not indicative of any real scientific rigor or even indicative of the metaphysical reality of claims Jesus made that you seem to take seriously? Never said Jesus couldn't be right about particular things, but that still is a leap in logic you fail to recognize. And that's not about fear, it's about prudence.

How can you test if heaven is real or if you have a soul or if God exists? The most you can do is things that are basic morality in the first place, demonstrable because of the consequences, but not some physical reality, just a pattern in terms of human interactions
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are you really accusing me of being afraid to try something when my point is that the idea you're positing is such that I've pointed out several times is not indicative of any real scientific rigor or even indicative of the metaphysical reality of claims Jesus made that you seem to take seriously? Never said Jesus couldn't be right about particular things, but that still is a leap in logic you fail to recognize. And that's not about fear, it's about prudence.

How can you test if heaven is real or if you have a soul or if God exists? The most you can do is things that are basic morality in the first place, demonstrable because of the consequences, but not some physical reality, just a pattern in terms of human interactions
You are mistaken in the idea that God would have to be something you can fully figure out, so that you could pin Him down, as if He'd be subject to your logical rules.

It's like unknown physics -- you have to seek to find what you don't even know whether exists. But, here we have a very wise guide, a Newton/Einstein and more altogether, the Christ, who can tell you so much. So I'm saying your logic won't help. It's about courage or a desire to know. You'd have to explore new ground. Christ is the guide, but you can of course refuse, and that's only fear in that case.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
You are mistaken in the idea that God would have to be something you can fully figure out, so that you could pin Him down, as if He'd be subject to your logical rules.

It's like unknown physics -- you have to seek to find what you don't even know whether exists. But, here we have a very wise guide, a Newton/Einstein and more altogether, the Christ, who can tell you so much. So I'm saying your logic won't help. It's about courage or a desire to know. You'd have to explore new ground. Christ is the guide, but you can of course refuse, and that's only fear in that case.
Pretty sure I never claimed anything about the God concept in my full understanding: also, I don't claim I need full understanding of anything, I need a rigorous understanding that is subject to self correction, not something a God concept tends to do easily and isn't even really needed for cogency.

Jesus tells me nothing I cannot find elsewhere and more realistically, like with Gautama Buddha (and not even because I'm a secular Buddhist, it's a placeholder, I loathe the notion that someone puts atheist as a faith, prefer to not buy into it if I can

Again, you're accusing me of fear because you can't consider that it's not about an unwillingness to engage, it's a rejection of the concept you present as cogent. You have yet again ignored the criticism I bring forth and spout existentialist drivel, as if that's solving the problem that you're leaping from "Jesus' teachings about love are good" to, seemingly, "Jesus' teachings about God and heaven are also correct"
 
Upvote 0

chilehed

Veteran
Jul 31, 2003
4,710
1,384
63
Michigan
✟236,715.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Okay, to keep this short, I was wondering if anyone had a genuine theory/explanation to this concept I see a lot;

Eternal universe = false, because we need God for the universe to exist
God's existence = He always existed, thus created the universe

There's kind of a...contradiction here? A 'special plead' or exception for God, as I've heard some put it. It's an interesting concept and I wondered if anyone else has put much thought into it.

We say that the universe cannot be infinite or eternal because it needed God to exist, yet we have no explanation for how or when God came into existence.

I'd prefer replies from people who are at least semi-versed in cosmology, so no quoting the bible to base arguments :) (which is funny coming from a Christian)

I would take issue with the starting concept of an eternal universe. You can argue against that based on science.

Facing Up to Big Bang Challenges

Does the Bible Teach Big Bang Cosmology?

Has the Big Bang Gone Bust?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0