Universe being enternal

Jay_7 · Post by **Jay_7** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:44 pm

Lots of people who dont believe in god think that the universe is enternal, why i think this isnt true is because, the universe has time, and according to evolutionist, things evolve, which needs time, and if the universe in enternal, it must have no time, but it does. So therefore it cannot be enternal, and nothing could have just appeared here, and formed so perfectly into life, which means that there must be someone outside, which is God.

I was just sharing what i thought. whats everyone else think?

Religious Fanatic · Post by **Religious Fanatic** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:46 pm

Agreed, and if the universe has always been here it would have maxed out by now and died a long time ago.

SUGAAAAA · Post by **SUGAAAAA** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:58 am

the universe cant be eternal because of heat death.

The Barbarian · Post by **The Barbarian** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:11 pm

Not to mention, the recession of Galaxies. They would all have been out of sight by now. Or if new ones were being continuously produced, the sky would be ablaze with radiation from an infinite number of them.

Can't be eternal.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:10 am

The Barbarian wrote:Not to mention, the recession of Galaxies. They would all have been out of sight by now.

Or if new ones were being continuously produced, the sky would be ablaze with radiation from an infinite number of them.

This would depend on the rate of production wouldn't it?
=)

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:49 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
The Barbarian wrote:Not to mention, the recession of Galaxies. They would all have been out of sight by now.

Or if new ones were being continuously produced, the sky would be ablaze with radiation from an infinite number of them.
This would depend on the rate of production wouldn't it?
=)

Galaxies coming into existence uncaused? First law of thermodynamics, duh. That, and the Big Bang Theory won out over the Steady State Theory, so there

DrCreation · Post by **DrCreation** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:43 pm

Greetings Jay_7,

Your are on the right track. Just don't put too much stock in the "Big Bang" model. As proposed, it is totally out of line with the Bible; meaning the facts that it is based on must be re-aligned with the Genesis account. Check out Dr. Humphreys book, Starlight and Time for a better answer. Remember, we bring our scientific thinking into line with the Scriptures, not with the interpretations of science.

Have a great day.

tachyon · Post by **tachyon** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:00 am

Jay_7,

This is a really interesting topic. What's even more interesting to me is that from around the mid 19th century through the mid 20th century, most scientists who were atheists/agnostics were convinced that the universe was infinite and were willing to go to great lengths to establish this, but the evidence they uncovered just did not support this hypothesis. Einstein, for example, recognized that his equations of general relativity predicted a dynamic universe so he introduced a new term into the equations which would cancel off the time-evolution of the universe. When overwhelming physical evidence-mostly from Edwin Hubble-later indicated a universe that has been expanding (according to the currently accepted standard big bang model of the universe) he revoked this term, calling it "his greatest blunder." Very interesting are the twists and turns that physics adds to our worldviews...

tachyon · Post by **tachyon** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:03 am

DrCreation wrote: Check out Dr. Humphreys book, Starlight and Time for a better answer. Remember, we bring our scientific thinking into line with the Scriptures, not with the interpretations of science.

Actually, the scientific evidence (from astrophysics anyway) points unequivically to a creator, so there is no need to "bring our scientific thingking in line" with anything. For a book on this, check out The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross.

Jay_7 · Post by **Jay_7** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:39 pm

The Universe has a beginning because of the fact you cannot go back in time, because what if you did, and you killed your dad before you were born? That means the universe is going forward, but, the universe needs a starting point to go forward, which is why it HAD to of been created by a place with no time, sounds familiar.

macguy · Post by **macguy** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:56 pm

The most common excuse for believing in a infinite universe now-days is the string theory. It's a bunch of speculation to me. No evidence to support such a position but they'd accept any alternative to escape a beginning. What are your thoughts?

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:31 pm

macguy wrote:The most common excuse for believing in a infinite universe now-days is the string theory. It's a bunch of speculation to me. No evidence to support such a position but they'd accept any alternative to escape a beginning. What are your thoughts?

I don't understand the physics of it well enough to speculate, except to state that string theory is speculative. All it would do if anywhere near true is add another layer that still would leave the question of first cause unanswered.

Silvertusk · Post by **Silvertusk** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:58 am

Logic suggests that you cant have eternity in this time line anyway because how would you get to the present if you have to transgress an infinite number of days to get here - which means - you would never get here. The same applies for an infinte number of universes as well. They would all have to be created at the same time others it would be logically impossible for us to reach this fine tuned one that we live in today. Dr Willaim Craig explains it a lot better - check out his videos on:

http://www.leestrobel.com/Creator.htm

Among loads of others there.

God Bless

Silvertusk

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:10 am

Silvertusk wrote:Logic suggests that you cant have eternity in this time line anyway because how would you get to the present if you have to transgress an infinite number of days to get here - which means - you would never get here.

Not to be a pain or anything but are you sure about your logic?

For instance we can say the distance from my home to the super market can be divided into two. And each section can be divided into two and each of those into two etc. So in effect there are an infinite number of points along the path which I must travel. According to you I would never make it to the market and would thus starve to death.

Silvertusk · Post by **Silvertusk** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:02 am

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Silvertusk wrote:Logic suggests that you cant have eternity in this time line anyway because how would you get to the present if you have to transgress an infinite number of days to get here - which means - you would never get here.
Not to be a pain or anything but are you sure about your logic?

For instance we can say the distance from my home to the super market can be divided into two. And each section can be divided into two and each of those into two etc. So in effect there are an infinite number of points along the path which I must travel. According to you I would never make it to the market and would thus starve to death.

No my logic is sound - like i said - check out that link - Dr Craig explains it better than i do. Besides - you have a definate starting point and a definate end point in your scenario - you are walking on a finite line. An eternal past and an eternal future is totally different.

Evidence for God from Science

Universe being enternal

Universe being enternal

RE