Concerning the Nature of the Universe

[theInquirer]

Now it is easily proved that there must exist something which does not derive it's existence from anything else but itself because if everything derived its existence from everything else, then nothing would exist, for existence would be traced back through an unending chain of sources of existence; there must be a beginning.  This proof then went on to assert that this something must be God, and while I certainly do want to agree with it, how do I know that the universe couldn't just derive its existence from itself?

[Jostler]

Why not frame it the other way?

"How do I know that the universe couldn't have been formed by God?"

 

This debate is older than you and me put together and it's unusual for it to change anyone's mind.  I'd be accused of assuming God created the universe because the Bible tells me He did.  Guilty as charged

Yet there IS evidence apart from Scripture that  is plenty to convince me.  Secular cosmologists have produced studies that show that if the ratios of hydrogen, helium and oxygen out in the farthest reaches of the universe  were just a little different than they are, life as we know it here would not be possible.  We have a sun and moon that are such precise sizes, set at such precise distances, in orbits so precise as to allow the much  smaller moon to occlude the sun periodically, which  if you study  it, has provided us information  about the universe we could not have obtained if eclipses were not part of our solar/planetary/lunar cycle.

The whole solar system seems to be deliberately constructed in a precise way that invites investigation and greater understanding of Creation.  The logical, rational, mathematical precision of cosmic  motions seem to beg me to look for an intelligence that designed them and set them in motion.

Any cursory investigation of the theory  of evolution reveals the absolute poverty  of that theory's ability to explain life in ANY way.  It doesn't take much of a dive into the actual evidence available to see where it points.  There's been a HUGE propaganda program intending to convince us that the "science is settled" and it's anything but.   And you  don't have to be a scientist to investigate it.  You just have to dig past the public propaganda one layer and what you find is understandable by just about  anyone that made it past 7th  grade physical science.

Quote

Pro 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

I have a friend who God has been working with in incredible ways on this very  topic.  Maybe he'll show up and provide some more specific examples

I have *always* loved science and I have always seen it in light  of the above verse.  Please forgive the analogy's pagan roots but I see science as a huge cosmic "easter egg hunt".    God has hidden incredible nuggets of truth about Who He is in His creation and (I believe) He invites us to go searching for them.  When I study creation I very often get this sense my Heavenly Father is enjoying my search just as an earthly father might take time to hide eggs and delight in seeing his child enjoy the hunt...all the while giving hints...."You're gettting warmer......"   lol 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Jostler

[Who me]

On 1/27/2019 at 2:34 AM, theInquirer said:

how do I know that the universe couldn't just derive its existence from itself?

What evidence do you have that nothing can cause something to exist.

Multiple zero by zero what does your calculator give as an answer?

 

[Guest]

On 1/26/2019 at 9:34 PM, theInquirer said:

Now it is easily proved that there must exist something which does not derive it's existence from anything else but itself because if everything derived its existence from everything else, then nothing would exist, for existence would be traced back through an unending chain of sources of existence; there must be a beginning.  This proof then went on to assert that this something must be God, and while I certainly do want to agree with it, how do I know that the universe couldn't just derive its existence from itself?

Theoretical physics disproves the infinite universe theory.

[Guest]

On 1/28/2019 at 4:54 AM, Who me said:

What evidence do you have that nothing can cause something to exist.

Multiple zero by zero what does your calculator give as an answer?

0 * 0 = 0  This proves nor disproves nothing.  My calculator works just fine and gives the answer 0.  How many rational numbers are between 0 and 1?  [Hint: the answer is an infinite number.]

 

[Who me]

12 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

0 * 0 = 0  This proves nor disproves nothing.  My calculator works just fine and gives the answer 0.  How many rational numbers are between 0 and 1?  [Hint: the answer is an infinite numbe

0 x 1 = 0 .

Which means the universe cannot create its self.

Something outside of time and space has to create space, time, energy and matter.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Who me said:

0 x 1 = 0 .

Which means the universe cannot create its self.

Something outside of time and space has to create space, time, energy and matter.

Using mathematics to prove or disprove intelligent design is absurd.  The question I asked remains unanswered.  Part of the number string goes like this:

.9, .99, .999, .9999, .99999, .999999, .9999999, .99999999, ..., never reaching 1.0

[ByFaithAlone]

On 1/26/2019 at 9:34 PM, theInquirer said:

Now it is easily proved that there must exist something which does not derive it's existence from anything else but itself because if everything derived its existence from everything else, then nothing would exist, for existence would be traced back through an unending chain of sources of existence; there must be a beginning.  This proof then went on to assert that this something must be God, and while I certainly do want to agree with it, how do I know that the universe couldn't just derive its existence from itself?

Ok so this is a very interesting question and the argument itself is rather old and hinges on the idea of contingent vs. necessary beings. In this case 'being' just refers to a given state of affairs and does not imply sentience. In terms of Western philosophy it was used by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Basically the premises and conclusion go roughly as follows: 

1. Every contingent being as a reason for it's existence. 

2. Our universe is a contingent being and must have a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. 

3. The universe exists.  

4. The universe (being contingent) must have an explanation for it's existence (Principle of Sufficient Reason).  

5. Therefore the universe has a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. 

Your question (and please correct me if I am wrong) concerns the universe itself and where it could derive it's existence from. In logic terms contingent beings are those that begin and/or cease to exist. You and I for example, are contingent beings. The question is if the universe should also be labeled as contingent. Before the 1920s this was one of the larger objections to this argument. Some thought the universe may be infinite and static. There were philosophical objections to that argument but there was no hard scientific proof either way. However, modern views of cosmology have significantly changed. Most scientists agree that our universe (or any inflationary universe) is past-finite or in somewhat more technical terms geodesically past-incomplete. This would make our universe a contingent being. Now of course there are always new objections being raised about the various premises and the past-finite nature of the universe but I hope that helps as a springboard for you to explore a bit more.    

[Who me]

12 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The question I asked remains unanswered.

Yes, but done on a calculator gets the answer I supplied.

In mathmatical, philsophical and every practical way nothing does not cause something to happen.

There has to be a cause.

[theInquirer]

On 1/30/2019 at 7:00 PM, ByFaithAlone said:

Ok so this is a very interesting question and the argument itself is rather old and hinges on the idea of contingent vs. necessary beings. In this case 'being' just refers to a given state of affairs and does not imply sentience. In terms of Western philosophy it was used by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Basically the premises and conclusion go roughly as follows: 

1. Every contingent being as a reason for it's existence. 

2. Our universe is a contingent being and must have a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. 

3. The universe exists.  

4. The universe (being contingent) must have an explanation for it's existence (Principle of Sufficient Reason).  

5. Therefore the universe has a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. 

Your question (and please correct me if I am wrong) concerns the universe itself and where it could derive it's existence from. In logic terms contingent beings are those that begin and/or cease to exist. You and I for example, are contingent beings. The question is if the universe should also be labeled as contingent. Before the 1920s this was one of the larger objections to this argument. Some thought the universe may be infinite and static. There were philosophical objections to that argument but there was no hard scientific proof either way. However, modern views of cosmology have significantly changed. Most scientists agree that our universe (or any inflationary universe) is past-finite or in somewhat more technical terms geodesically past-incomplete. This would make our universe a contingent being. Now of course there are always new objections being raised about the various premises and the past-finite nature of the universe but I hope that helps as a springboard for you to explore a bit more.    

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense!