-
Arguments Refuting Eternal Universe Argument
What are the arguments that refute the concept of an eternal universe? Many of the philosophers of the old times used to believe that our universe/matter is eternal and not created at particular point in time, from this they used to infer that the universe is not in need of a creator. What are the arguments that common sense and religion provides against this notion. @UmerQureshi @faisalharoon @Irfan76
-
8 Replies
-
Arguments Refuting Eternal Universe Argument
updated 2 years, 5 months ago
4 Members
·
8
Replies
-
Science tells us that this universe and everything that it contains came into existence as a result of the Big Bang.
Every single subatomic particle, to unexplainable harmony in the systems of nature, to mathematical precision of physical constants, to exacting laws of nature, to fascinating code in every genome, to mind boggling aesthetics in the entire creation – everything we look at bears the signature of an intelligent designer.
In contrast to such scientific as well as empirical evidence that’s accessible to every human being with a sound mind, the idea of eternal universe has no basis.
-
True, brother. Today we have big bang that explains us why the universe has a beginning and it is not eternal. But I am talking about old times (neo platonic philosophers used to believe that), when big bang theory was not proposed. What were the arguments (derived from general knowledge/common sense/intuition) against the notion of eternal world back then?
-
Could it have been a reasonable argument back then that everything we observe in our world from a child to a chair is not existing since eternity and always owes its existence to a point in time. Even if we reverse our today’s surroundings we can feel that, the trees and mountains we are looking at owe their existence to a prior condition (seeds, sediments) which in turn owe their existence to something else. If we move back this way, we can determine that the world itself must owe its existence to something and hence the notion that universe is eternal becomes very weak.
-
-
In addition to the Big Bang argument I also provided you with the design argument, which is in fact a stronger argument than any other.
-
Alright sir, thank you!
-
-
It was an assumption, not an argument that the world and the universe had always been the same as they are. On the other hand, human intellect demands that every thing created needs a creator. So to claim that the universe always existed, needs no creator was not an argument at all, it was an assumption
-
Got it, sir. Thanks!
-
-
Every physical event taking place in the universe can be traced back in time as a chain of cause and effect
If the universe had existed since forever, the heat death of the universe would have occurred long ago. We know entropy increases with time and for our universe, there is only a finite amount of time before that occurs.
As for a philosophical argument :
The popular argument which refutes the eternal existence of the universe is based on the idea that actual infinity doesn’t exist. An infinite amount of time isn’t a number. But l don’t use this argument as it may confuse Muslims who believe God has always existed.
It’s important to realize we don’t understand infinite duration and it is possibly a meaningless concept since it isn’t applicable on God who is not confined by time. In other words, infinite duration makes time meaningless. That’s why we won’t experience time/age in the hereafter. When we say God has existed since forever ( and will exist forever) , we mean he is beyond time. The universe on the other hand isn’t beyond time. If you understand this distinction, you can use this argument also.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
