Question:
A question for theists and atheists?
anonymous
2012-01-15 23:12:33 UTC
Atheists- If an eternal universe or "existence" is reasonable, why not an eternal creator named God?

Theists- If an eternal creator named God is reasonable, why not an eternal universe or "existence" that cuts out the middle "man"?
Twelve answers:
Michael Darnell
2012-01-16 00:51:21 UTC
I am an atheist, but I see no reason to presume either a God or a universe should be 'eternal' simply because that might be aesthetically pleasing.



While the universe is certainly large and near infinite it is not as far as we can tell infinite in expanse, since it is apparently finite in the dimensions of space it may not be infinite in time but there is no reason to assume that it *must* be finite, so we should be honest and admit that we do not know.



As for a God? While the universe may be observed to exist - there is no similar evidence to support the claim that a God exists or that one ever existed.



The difference is pretty straightforward - one thing obviously exists and the other does not appear to exist. Therefore based upon what I "know" by observation to be true I can only say that the universe exists and no God appears to likewise exist. Speculation on the subject is not "reason" and it does not help us to understand or to do anything in particular - so why should we make an unsupported assumption?
Colton
2012-01-16 07:21:34 UTC
I'm atheist, so I'll answer your first question.



An eternal universe is possible, not necessarily probable. I have absolutely no clue on the matter, and no one does. The reason I dismiss an eternal creator is because it is useless. If the universe is eternal, than there is no need for it to be created, there for a creator is useless. I think it makes more sense to have an eternal universe without a creator than to add an extra step and say the universe is finite but there's an eternal god. If you were to do that, why not say then that that god is finite, and there is another creator who's eternal?
?
2012-01-16 19:29:06 UTC
Both the theists and atheists that claim that either the universe or God has an infinite regression into the past are wrong. They are both wrong because space-time itself began at the Big Bang; time DOES have a beginning. To ask what came "before time" is nonsense, because the term "before time" is a descriptor that assumes a point in time prior to the beginning of time, and that is simply an incoherent concept. Without time, there is no "before".



I do have a logical argument proving that an infinite regression in the past is impossible. Please feel free to email me if you would like clarification:



1) If an infinite amount of time comes before an event, then the event will never occur (by definition).



2) If the event will occur in the future, then it must mean that there is a finite amount of time between the present and the future event.



3) From Premise 1, it means that there is a finite amount of time before any event occurs. Otherwise the event will never occur.



4) Because the present is happening now, it must mean that there is a finite amount of time before the present.



5) Therefore, An infinite amount of time (an infinite regression into the past) is not possible, due to the fact that the present is occurring.



An objection I've i seen from this is the proposal that time is cyclic. The same argument can be applied to the proposal:



1) If an infinite amount of cycles precede one cycle, than the cycle will never happen.



2) Because the current time-cycle is happening how, this must mean that there is a finite amount of time-cycles that came before the present cycle.



3) Therefore, an infinite amount of cycles into the past is impossible.



The point of this logical argument is to demonstrate that there has to be a beginning somewhere, and an infinite regress into the past is impossible, either with the proposal that time is linear or cyclic.



If God had existed for an infinite amount of time in the past, then it means that God would never be able to do anything, because doing anything in the future requires a finite amount of time before the event can happen. It also implies that there would be an infinite amount of time preceding the present, and thus the present would not happen. But because the present is happening now, it proves that there IS a finite amount of time before the present, and ergo, there is a beginning to everything.



Your question assumes that an infinite regress into the past is necessary to explain the present. On the contrary, I think that an infinite regress into the past is impossible if the present exists.



Therefore, neither the universe, or God (if such a thing existed) can have "eternal existence".
Jess H
2012-01-16 07:26:11 UTC
Q- "If an eternal universe or "existence" is reasonable, why not an eternal creator named God?"

A- We KNOW that the universe exists. There is not a single scrap of evidence for the existence of such a thing as "God". They are NOT "equal" arguments.



You have to prove that such a thing even EXISTS before it would be "reasonable" to believe that it is eternal. Right now, considering there is NO evidence that such a thing as "God" even exists, the concept of "an eternal creator named God" is NOT reasonable.
Life Guru
2012-01-16 07:16:32 UTC
It all boils down to verification and validation. The notion of an eternal Universe is not consistent with our aggregated knowledge base while the notion of a creator is. However, we should not accept anything without proof including the existence of God. Quran 23:117. That doesn't mean we should let ourselves be duped into an endless "do more" merry go round". If we can verify and validate with probability approaching 1 then we should not insist on 1 or nothing, neither should we incline towards mere possibilities hovering near zero. Those who cling on to lottery winning odds just to protect stubbornly held positions are the real losers.
pab
2012-01-16 07:13:29 UTC
"why not an eternal creator named God?"



Because then that would be obvious
101k
2012-01-16 07:16:46 UTC
the fact that your assuming eternity as a variable of time shows that the question is wrong...(first off infinity in a logical sense couldn't be answered) if there is a big bang, "before" couldn't exist, given that the big bang created the fourth dimension of time...so you are escaping that possibility
francis
2012-01-16 07:21:06 UTC
Either way we have the same problem don't we?We have trouble thinking about someone or something having always existed.We have trouble thinking of something coming into existence out of nothing and yet we exist.The problem is trying to understand the infinite with a finite mind.
Leo Cast
2012-01-16 07:16:11 UTC
God makes no sense to me, there are lots of explanations and there is no explanation that has evidence about the existance of a god.

Science actually has theories that make sense and most of them have been prooved.



I come from a catholic family and i took the decision of being atheist by myself.
anonymous
2012-01-16 07:14:26 UTC
The deity would have to be infinitely more complex than the universe it created. There's nothing to indicate such a thing.

So, no...it's not "reasonable". That doesn't mean it's not possible, but it's not reasonable.
Rarity Roberto
2012-01-16 07:20:23 UTC
God is such a boring name and generic word for a deity.And anyone that knows something about physics knows that a god is not needed at all.
anonymous
2012-01-16 07:13:53 UTC
What do we have evidence of exactly?


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...