Why Must There be a Beginning?

[Danmark]

Why is it so difficult for many to accept the concept that the universe (or existence) has always been? I understand that we are always looking for causes (first or otherwise) or for beginnings, but it does not seem necessary. Is the concept beyond the imagination of some? Are they unable to form this concept?
It seems that Christians accept the idea of something having no beginning since they accept this about God. But if 'god' can be an exception in their minds, why not the universe itself?

[rikuoamero]

Scientists say that the universe had a beginning. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

I realize that this is a problem for atheists because, if the universe had a beginning, then there must have been a beginner to begin it.

The absurdity of this idea of infinity is demonstrated with Hilbert's Hotel.

http://mathandmultimedia.com/2014/05/26 ... l-paradox/

There are several things with your post that I take issue with. Notice that I don't say that what you posted is wrong.

First, you quite correctly point out that scientists say that the universe had a beginning.
Notice what you said there. A beginning. Not the beginning, but A beginning. This runs counter to what pretty much all Christian denominations agree on - that there was the one specific beginning to the universe.
I'm going to guess that you didn't realize what exactly what you said implies.

I also take exception to the part where you say there must have been a beginner. This is you falling victim to the problem that the OP asks about - why must have there been a beginning, and while the OP doesn't state it, I'm fairly confident that the OP also means why assume that there was a beginner? Saying there was a beginner the way you did is just an assertion without any justification.

Lastly, I don't know why you linked us to an explanation of Hilbert's hotel paradox. What does that have to do with asserting the universe had THE beginning (which I guess is what you meant to say, instead of A) and that there was a beginner?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 11 by rikuoamero]

I'm fairly confident that the OP also means why assume that there was a beginner? Saying there was a beginner the way you did is just an assertion without any justification.

Correct. Essentially the idea of a creator who began everything [and the First Cause argument] is just another special pleading. Religionists like special pleadings. They like them, but they deny them in the same breath. It's another example of the old line, 'We're all atheists; I just believe in one less god than you do.'

[tam]

Peace to you!

Why is it so difficult for many to accept the concept that the universe (or existence) has always been?

Perhaps it is hard to grasp that this universe has always existed because, as both science and creation agree... this universe did indeed have a beginning. I agree that the universe did not come from nothing though. (it is misleading for scientists to say that the universe came from Nothing - capital N - but that Nothing actually means something). Something or someone existed first, in order to bring the universe into being (bring it into being via a 'thing or person'... such as via Christ, the Light through whom God created all things).

I understand that we are always looking for causes (first or otherwise) or for beginnings, but it does not seem necessary.

I agree that it does not seem necessary, although most things we know of DO have a beginning - everything that we are aware of, with exception to God, at least for those who are aware of Him.


I think scientists used to say that the universe always existed... but new evidence revealed to them that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

Is the concept beyond the imagination of some? Are they unable to form this concept? It seems that Christians accept the idea of something having no beginning since they accept this about God. But if 'god' can be an exception in their minds, why not the universe itself?

The universe could be an exception as well... except that we have evidence to the contrary.






Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Danmark]

Peace to you!

Why is it so difficult for many to accept the concept that the universe (or existence) has always been?

Perhaps it is hard to grasp that this universe has always existed because, as both science and creation agree... this universe did indeed have a beginning. I agree that the universe did not come from nothing though. (it is misleading for scientists to say that the universe came from Nothing - capital N - but that Nothing actually means something). Something or someone existed first, in order to bring the universe into being (bring it into being via a 'thing or person'... such as via Christ, the Light through whom God created all things).

So, you say the came from something. What? God? Did God always exist? If you believe so, then you believe something has always existed and just make a SPECIAL PLEADING for 'god.'

I've made it clear that by 'universe,' I include it in its various forms. Scientists do NOT claim the universe came from nothing. You simply claim (with ZERO evidence) that that 'something' that preexisted is what you call 'god.' I claim that the universe has always been, tho' its form may have changed; that there may have been an endless cycle of singularities. What I call 'the universe' [unless and until there is another term for it] includes it's form prior to its so-called 'beginning.'

Perhaps 'existence' is a better term than universe. Then fine, I claim existence has always been; that it had no beginning. There is no need to speculate that a 'god' created anything at all. I see such speculation as utter fantasy, no different from supposing a Zeus or Odin or Brahma/Vishnu created existence.

[William]

[Replying to post 14 by Danmark]

Perhaps 'existence' is a better term than universe. Then fine, I claim existence has always been; that it had no beginning. There is no need to speculate that a 'god' created anything at all. I see such speculation as utter fantasy, no different from supposing a Zeus or Odin or Brahma/Vishnu created existence.

Perhaps you missed my own reply in post #10

Perhaps you can point out where in my own post there is this 'special pleading' you are referring to?
Because certainly my argument is that GOD (Consciousness) has always existed, just as surely as the universe (re the theory) has always existed.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 14 by Danmark]

Perhaps 'existence' is a better term than universe. Then fine, I claim existence has always been; that it had no beginning. There is no need to speculate that a 'god' created anything at all. I see such speculation as utter fantasy, no different from supposing a Zeus or Odin or Brahma/Vishnu created existence.

Perhaps you missed my own reply in post #10

Perhaps you can point out where in my own post there is this 'special pleading' you are referring to?
Because certainly my argument is that GOD (Consciousness) has always existed, just as surely as the universe (re the theory) has always existed.

Assuming 'consciousness' has always existed is an even bigger leap of imagination. Calling it 'god' adds nothing. The more detailed the speculation the more unlikely it is to be true.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 13 by tam]

Perhaps it is hard to grasp that this universe has always existed because, as both science and creation agree... this universe did indeed have a beginning.

Actually, I don't think that that is quite true. Saying "beginning" implies there was nothing, and then, the universe as a whole just began.
What I think scientists say (take what I say with a grain of salt if you will) is that we can look backwards in time only so far, to 10e ^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Before that, the laws of physics as we understand them break down.
Pay attention to that, tam. It has always been my understanding that this does not mean a beginning in the sense of say...a TV starting to play a movie, where before there was no movie on the screen. It's that there were laws of physics in play that we do not understand.

I agree that it does not seem necessary, although most things we know of DO have a beginning - everything that we are aware of, with exception to God, at least for those who are aware of Him.

This here is were you and I are at odds. Why the exception for God?

[Tcg]

Scientists say that the universe had a beginning.

That doesn't mean that matter had a beginning. Of course fundamentalists will continue to cherry pick little snippets here an there and ignore what science actually says.

I realize that this is a problem for atheists because, if the universe had a beginning, then there must have been a beginner to begin it.

It's not a problem for this atheist because I recognize the fact that this statement is both based on a dishonest misrepresentation of what science actually states and is an unsupported assertion.

The problem for theists is that they can't provide any evidence for god/gods of any kind so they make up arguments in an attempt to hide that fact. The one you presented is one of the most amusing. "There must have been a beginner to begin it." has to be one of the silliest phrases ever presented as an argument.

[tam]

Peace to you Danmark,

Peace to you!

Why is it so difficult for many to accept the concept that the universe (or existence) has always been?

Perhaps it is hard to grasp that this universe has always existed because, as both science and creation agree... this universe did indeed have a beginning. I agree that the universe did not come from nothing though. (it is misleading for scientists to say that the universe came from Nothing - capital N - but that Nothing actually means something). Something or someone existed first, in order to bring the universe into being (bring it into being via a 'thing or person'... such as via Christ, the Light through whom God created all things).

So, you say the came from something.

I do not say that the universe came from something. How in the world would I know?

Christ Jaheshua says the creation (and even He, Himself) came from God. I am just listening to Him.




So I am not speculating. I am not smart enough or wise enough to do so. And what I mean by not speculating is this: I'm not trying to figure out what is most likely, or what might be true; or even going with what I WANT to be true or what I think is more likely. And like DI, I also have trouble comprehending either scenario: how existence could come from nothing OR how existence could always exist.

And yet here we are.

Obviously the truth does not depend upon my comprehension or upon my speculation.


I am just listening to the One who does know, and who was there (no one else, besides JAH, can say the same); and who speaks the truth in all things. That is how I know the universe came from something. That is how I know that something is a someone (God) who always existed.







Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Tcg]

Obviously the truth does not depend upon my comprehension or upon my speculation.


I am just listening to the One who does know...

You are speculating that there is "One" who does know. You are also speculating that the voice you hear in your head is that "One".

So in spite of your claim to the contrary, you are speculating.