Eternity

[Diogenes]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #124]

Perhaps you can point out to me where either Craig or Aquinas show any openness to the idea the universe has always been, in one form or another. To me it seems obvious that existence has always been, that it needs no "beginning." That statement can be viewed as an assumption or as a premise. I'll call it a tentative conclusion. I'm open to changing that view, but have never seen an argument or a set of facts that yet persuade me otherwise.

Something has to be eternal. An infinite regress of universes, infinite universe, or infinite God.

Entropy does not allow for an infinite regress of universes or an infinite universe so you are left with an infinite God. Did I miss any other option?

Entropy re this universe is just one of the theories. There are theories based upon mathematics which say that the universe will go on expanding forever.

What is unknown is whether the universe actually had a beginning - the math does not go so far as to show it is the case, but only so far as to imply it was the case.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #131]

What is unknown is whether the universe actually had a beginning - the math does not go so far as to show it is the case, but only so far as to imply it was the case.

It is not unknown whether the universe actually had a beginning it had to have a beginning because of entropy along with redshift.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #124]

Perhaps you can point out to me where either Craig or Aquinas show any openness to the idea the universe has always been, in one form or another. To me it seems obvious that existence has always been, that it needs no "beginning." That statement can be viewed as an assumption or as a premise. I'll call it a tentative conclusion. I'm open to changing that view, but have never seen an argument or a set of facts that yet persuade me otherwise.

Something has to be eternal. An infinite regress of universes, infinite universe, or infinite God.

Entropy does not allow for an infinite regress of universes or an infinite universe so you are left with an infinite God. Did I miss any other option?

I don't know about that, but nothing you wrote made any sense to me. I don't really even know what "infinite regress" means. It makes no sense to me; never has. I don't know why it is so hard for some to conceive of, let alone believe that existence has always been.

My POINT, and the point of this thread, is that theists have no trouble with the idea that their 'god' has always existed. But they have a HUGE problem with allowing that same quality for the universe. Why must 'god' be so special?

[JoeyKnothead]

My POINT, and the point of this thread, is that theists have no trouble with the idea that their 'god' has always existed. But they have a HUGE problem with allowing that same quality for the universe. Why must 'god' be so special?

Cause some of that bunch're special?

[Diogenes]

My POINT, and the point of this thread, is that theists have no trouble with the idea that their 'god' has always existed. But they have a HUGE problem with allowing that same quality for the universe. Why must 'god' be so special?

Cause some of that bunch're special?

Joey, are you suggesting they're so special they could be in the Olympics?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #131]

What is unknown is whether the universe actually had a beginning - the math does not go so far as to show it is the case, but only so far as to imply it was the case.

It is not unknown whether the universe actually had a beginning it had to have a beginning because of entropy along with redshift.

I once thought that was the case as well - because it is one of the most popular theories which aligns with the math.
However, what I am trying to let you know, is that it is not the only theory which aligns with the math.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #133]

My POINT, and the point of this thread, is that theists have no trouble with the idea that their 'god' has always existed. But they have a HUGE problem with allowing that same quality for the universe. Why must 'god' be so special?

I am a theist.

I have no problem with the idea of allowing the same quality theists attribute to an everlasting GOD-creator, for the universe.

While that is an inverse sighting on the OPQ, it is still relevant to double standard which the OP is questioning.

Why is it unacceptable to attribute a mind to the universe, if one can be attributed to a GOD-creator?

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #133]

My POINT, and the point of this thread, is that theists have no trouble with the idea that their 'god' has always existed. But they have a HUGE problem with allowing that same quality for the universe. Why must 'god' be so special?

I am a theist.

I have no problem with the idea of allowing the same quality theists attribute to an everlasting GOD-creator, for the universe.

While that is an inverse sighting on the OPQ, it is still relevant to double standard which the OP is questioning.

Why is it unacceptable to attribute a mind to the universe, if one can be attributed to a GOD-creator?

Thanks for the post. I appreciate that you're willing to analyze both with the same rules. In answer to your last question, I agree that as you put the question, one could attribute 'mind' to the universe if one could alternately attribute existence to God. I would think that if the universe has a 'mind,' then it would be God.
I don't see evidence for either version, but I'd like to find it.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #138]

Thanks for the post. I appreciate that you're willing to analyze both with the same rules. In answer to your last question, I agree that as you put the question, one could attribute 'mind' to the universe if one could alternately attribute existence to God. I would think that if the universe has a 'mind,' then it would be God.
I don't see evidence for either version, but I'd like to find it.

Thank you for you well-balanced reply.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #136]

I once thought that was the case as well - because it is one of the most popular theories which aligns with the math.
However, what I am trying to let you know, is that it is not the only theory which aligns with the math.

The Cyclic Universe theory hhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/20 ... 1257a0f3as yet to overcome the math of the second law of thermodynamics or entropy.