Evidence for God from Science

Close, but you are mixing the language of the Kalam argument in here, which is hiding the really important nuances of the argument. It's not really about things coming into existence (strictly speaking) as it is about potential existence becoming real existence. For instance, right now, I actually sitting down. At this very moment, however, I have the potential to be standing. I cannot be both actually standing and actually sitting, so the moment I actually exist in a standing state, I lose that potentiality, and I gain the potentiality to be sitting. In fact, the only reason I have the ability to stand is because I really do have that potentiality. In other words, my potential is REAL--it just isn't actualized.

So we call the process of actualization of any potentiality "change." In scholastic terminology, potentiality has been reduced to actuality.

What the First Way says is that any change (actualization of a potentiality) requires something else to bring about that change because potentiality cannot actualize itself. That further means that the thing bringing about the change is itself in an actualized state, such that it can and is bringing about the change. So a baseball flying 80mph towards a catcher's mitt has the potential to fly 80mph over the pitcher's head. But what does it take to actualize that potentiality? A bat swinging in a particular way at a particular time and place. When the bat is actually in that state, it changes the baseball's flight path (actualizes that potential); again, notice the change in the baseball is completely dependent on 1) it's own potential to be so changed, and 2) the actual state of the baseball bat.

But then Aquinas demands an answer for the state of the bat. It is in a state of change--it's potential to be so swinging was actualized, but by what? Clearly, a batter. But that is not sufficient either, because what explains the batter's potential state of so swinging the bat being actualized? This goes on and on until, eventually, we come to a changer that is in its actual state, not because that actual state was brought about--that is, not because its actual state was formerly a potential state--but because its actual state is just what it is. This Changer can have NO potential states, for if it could, the process would just continue.

Therefore, we say that the First Changer is Pure Act. It has no potentiality whatsoever to be anything other than what it presently IS. The implications from that are HUGE. That makes the First Changer timeless (since to be in time is to be changing). It makes the First Changer immutable (since something without potential to be anything other than what it is cannot change to be something else). It makes the First Changer eternal (since, again, if it were not eternal, it would have potential to have come into existence or to go out of existence). It makes the First Changer omnipotent, since all change is rooted in it's Act of what it Is. It makes the First Changer not static, but eternally active--the First Changer is in a state of ACT. It IS DOING what it IS DOING and so it always will be, and that in a timeless state. It makes the First Changer exist a se, that is, in and for and of itself, completely independent of anything else, for if it were dependent on anything else, it would have the potential to change relative to that which it was dependent upon. It makes everything presently dependent ON the First Changer even for continued existence, since the very act of existing is a change from non-existence and requires the invocation of the Fist Changer.

The list goes on and on. The First Way doesn't just show that there is a First Cause that created the universe like the Kalam does. The First Way shows that the First Changer is what it is, must be what it is, cannot be other than what it is, and that all things are dependent on what it is. What would you call that other than God?

Why must there be a first changer?

Because of the kind of causal chains we are talking about: essentially ordered (rather than accidentally ordered) or per se rather than per accidens; instrumental causes, if you will.

Jargon aside, we're talking about changes that are happening because they being powered by some other change. Aquinas' example was a hand moving a stick moving a rock. So what's moving the rock, the stick or the hand? The modern standard example is an engine pulling a series of boxcars. Each boxcar is pulling the one in front of it, but what's doing the pulling? What is powering the whole process?

That's just the nature of these types of causal chains. Aquinas is not talking about a series of successive temporal changes like the game of mouse trap. In those types of causal chains, X happens that causes Y, but once X happens, it no longer has any relationship to Y other than a historical one (X caused Y), and when Y happens it causes Z, but Y the has no further relationship to z other than a historical one and on and on. So in the mouse trap example, you may remember the jingle, "Just turn the crank, and snap the plank, and boot the marble right down the chute, now watch it roll and hit the pole, and knock the ball in the rub-a-dub tub, which hits the man into the pan. The trap is set, here comes the net! Mouse trap, I guarantee, it's the craziest trap you'll ever see." In this type of series, I can turn the crank, and once the plank is snapped, I could take the crank off the board and the process would continue. And, again, once the marble is rolling, I can remove the blank and boot, and the process is not interrupted. You can see, though, that's not the case with essentially ordered (that is, instrumental) causes. If I take the stick away, the rock stops moving. If I take one of the cars away, all the cars behind it stop moving. Therefore, essentially ordered chains have to have an original cause powering everything, and when you break that argument down as Aquinas does, what we learn about that cause is that it must be Pure Act with no potentiality at all.

Therefore, essentially ordered chains have to have an original cause powering everything, and when you break that argument down as Aquinas does, what we learn about that cause is that it must be Pure Act with no potentiality at all.

Please explain me something. Let's assume that your above statement is correct.

The Universe did not exist "at first". Then GOD created the universe. How come the universe came into existence without being a potential first?

BryanH wrote:The Universe did not exist "at first". Then GOD created the universe. How come the universe came into existence without being a potential first?

1. If it did not exist, there is no "it" to have or be a potential for anything. If the universe WAS a "potential" first (or had the potential to be first) the it already existed. Notice the word "was" is a past tense rendering of the state of being verb to be. And notice further that in order to HAVE something, it first must BE, for that which is not cannot have anything.

2. More generally, your question is just about the nature of generation. How can anything come into existence that did not at first? You didn't always exist. You came into existence when a sperm and egg met and became a new entity. You did not have the potential to exist for the same reasons I just mentioned (that which doesn't exist has no potential for anything). So I could jut ask, "You did not exist 'at first.' Then YOUR PARENTS created you. How come you came into existence without being a potential first?" The question is just silly. That is what it MEANS to come into existence, to be created. You did not exist, and now you do. Just so, the universe did not exist, and now it does.

3. (2) above is just an explanation of efficient causality. You may object by arguing that at least you came FROM something (a sperm and egg). But here, all you are doing is questioning the possibility of creation ex nihilo. That is, you are saying that creation must always be out of some preexisting material (which is to say, you would be requiring a material cause rather than just an efficient cause). Now, we could have a nice detailed discussion about that, but suffice it to say, there is no logical requirement to claim that all causes must have a material cause. That is, there is nothing self-contradictory (logically speaking) about the notion of creation ex nihilo. I'm not going to do your work for you here. If you think there is, then you need to show it. And what you will find when you start about that task is that you won't be giving a logical argument but rather a metaphysical argument. And that's fine, we can discuss metaphysics; but in the end, at best all you are offering is a competing metaphysical model. It would remain for us to compare your model (which I remind you doesn't seem to exist yet!) against mine, and I promise you, mine stands up to very rigorous scrutiny.

But let's go further and concede for the sake of argument that all effects must have a material cause. That still doesn't effect the original argument you are quoting here, because it doesn't depend on that kind of cause/effect relationship. Thomas makes it a point to argue that even if the universe is eternal, it still requires a First Cause, which is to say, God. See my previous comments for more on that.

2. More generally, your question is just about the nature of generation. How can anything come into existence that did not at first? You didn't always exist. You came into existence when a sperm and egg met and became a new entity. You did not have the potential to exist for the same reasons I just mentioned (that which doesn't exist has no potential for anything). So I could jut ask, "You did not exist 'at first.' Then YOUR PARENTS created you. How come you came into existence without being a potential first?" The question is just silly. That is what it MEANS to come into existence, to be created. You did not exist, and now you do. Just so, the universe did not exist, and now it does.

I may have asked the question about the universe in the wrong way. Sorry about that. I'm not that educated in philosophy as you are. My dilemma works like this: I was not actually asking about the potential of the universe, but the cause-effect you are explaining for the creation of the universe.

Let's start from the example with "babies" coming into existence. Of course that you don't have any potential if you don't exist, but one's existence is caused by a potential (two parents considering/trying to have a baby) and an actualization (which is the conception/creation of the baby).

Now coming back to the universe and God. If God is Pure Act then it is logical to say that God is everything. Therefore if God is everything, he can't change.

I don't mind this kind of statement to a certain point where you start thinking about the implications of such godly attributes.

One of the most disturbing implications from my point of view is that God is past, present and future.
God can't change.

Basically there is nothing you can do about the future. You can't change it.

Correct if I am wrong on this matter. As I said, I am not that much into philosophy, but I do enjoy a good discussion.

BryanH wrote:Let's start from the example with "babies" coming into existence. Of course that you don't have any potential if you don't exist, but one's existence is caused by a potential (two parents considering/trying to have a baby) and an actualization (which is the conception/creation of the baby).

I'm trying to work on explaining things without falling into jargon. It's just that the jargon was invented for a specific reason--to explain clearly what we are trying to say! So the problem is that, strictly, a baby's existence is not "caused by a potential (two parents considering/trying to have a baby) and an actualization (which is the conception/creation of the baby)." Again, strictly that's not the case, although it's perfectly fine to say that in sort of general terms.

Strictly, a baby's existence comes not from a potentiality but from the procreative act. Now, sperm has certain potentialities--certain capacities. It can, just because of what it is, do certain things in certain cases. So, too, with eggs. And when the sperm meets the eggs, what could be the case (because of what those things are) actually becomes the case. The actualization of that potentiality--the potentiality for new life--is brought about by the procreative act. It is NOT brought about by the fact that the parents have the capability, the ability, or the potentiality in engaging in the act (and thank God for that, or women would just get pregnant at random times just because they are capable of having sex!).

The point is that any effect of any kind is always brought about by something actual. No effect is ever brought about by something potential. And the same is true with Creation. The entire Cosmos is an effect, and so it was brought about by an Act--the Creative Act. We can not say that God had the potential to create and then later actualized that potential. If we said that then we would have to ask what actualized God's potentiality to create? Since that actuality didn't exist, it couldn't bring about itself--as you recognized, something that doesn't actually exist doesn't have the potential for anything. So if God had the potential to create and that potency was actually brought about, we would have to look for some cause outside of God to account for that change. So that's why we come to the conclusion that there is no potentiality in God. He is just Pure Act. He is what He is and He is what He does. He is absolutely immutable, absolutely self-existent, and absolutely independent of and unaffected by anything in all of creation. That is what makes Him God.

Now coming back to the universe and God. If God is Pure Act then it is logical to say that God is everything. Therefore if God is everything, he can't change.

Just note I would not say that God is everything. There are things God is not. God is not you. He is not me. He just is what He is. He is unlimited, undefined existence, and therefore He cannot change, because to change requires for something to be in one (defined) state and then later be in another (defined) state, but if God is just existence, then it makes no sense to say He goes from one state to another.

I don't mind this kind of statement to a certain point where you start thinking about the implications of such godly attributes.

One of the most disturbing implications from my point of view is that God is past, present and future.
God can't change.

Then you just have a problem with God, because that is exactly the case. He can't change. He is absolutely perfect, lacks nothing, and is Pure, undefined, unlimited existence. And past, present, and future are all temporal terms that only apply to temporal beings. God is not past. He is not present. He is not future. He just is. I am present, and I see God here. And when I think of my past, I see God there. And when I think about my future, God is there, too. There is nowhere and nowhen God is not, because, at bottom, God is.

Basically there is nothing you can do about the future. You can't change it.

That's a different issue entirely. I'm pretty sure we've discussed that here somewhere . . . suffice it to say, it doesn't make sense to say you (or God, for that matter) can change the future, because the future does not exist yet, and that which does not exist cannot be changed.

Correct if I am wrong on this matter. As I said, I am not that much into philosophy, but I do enjoy a good discussion.

It's not that you are wrong. It's just that you need to keep thinking through these issues and let them clarify themselves. I think you are asking the right questions, though, and you are showing a sincere interest in interacting with the ideas.

The point is that any effect of any kind is always brought about by something actual. No effect is ever brought about by something potential. And the same is true with Creation. The entire Cosmos is an effect, and so it was brought about by an Act--the Creative Act. We can not say that God had the potential to create and then later actualized that potential. If we said that then we would have to ask what actualized God's potentiality to create? Since that actuality didn't exist, it couldn't bring about itself--as you recognized, something that doesn't actually exist doesn't have the potential for anything. So if God had the potential to create and that potency was actually brought about, we would have to look for some cause outside of God to account for that change. So that's why we come to the conclusion that there is no potentiality in God. He is just Pure Act. He is what He is and He is what He does. He is absolutely immutable, absolutely self-existent, and absolutely independent of and unaffected by anything in all of creation. That is what makes Him God.

That's the part that I simply can't understand and you are actually describing the "travel to the past" paradox.

If I open a portal 2 minutes back into the past before I pick up a gun and then shoot myself, who traveled to the past?

The Pure Act attribute of God is the same as the time travel paradox.

1) If God only actualized the Universe, the "concept" of Universe must have been a pre-existing "part/idea" of God in order for God to be only Pure Act. Since God can only actualize, he couldn't have actualized on something that didn't exist or the Universe is a random creation of God's whatever.
2)God is also omniscient so he had knowledge about the creation of the Universe before hand. I think that knowing something before hand qualifies as potentiality. But this would require time to have existed before the creation of the universe in order for me to say before hand. This is clearly a paradox.

It's kind of illogical but that's why they are called paradoxes. Waiting for feedback.

BryanH wrote:That's the part that I simply can't understand and you are actually describing the "travel to the past" paradox.

If I open a portal 2 minutes back into the past before I pick up a gun and then shoot myself, who traveled to the past?

It's hardly a paradox. Time travel into the past is impossible, because the past does not exist. You can't really go to the past any more than you can really go to Narnia.

The Pure Act attribute of God is the same as the time travel paradox.

1) If God only actualized the Universe, the "concept" of Universe must have been a pre-existing "part/idea" of God in order for God to be only Pure Act. Since God can only actualize, he couldn't have actualized on something that didn't exist or the Universe is a random creation of God's whatever.

All ideas exist in God. Remember that God is pure existence, and everything that is has that in common--it is (that is, it exists). God knows Himself, and therefore, by knowing Himself, He knows pure, undefined, unlimited existence. This means that He simultaneously knows all ways in which existence can be, which would include not only the universe as He created it and every potentiality in it that He actualizes but even every potentiality, even those never actualized.

2)God is also omniscient so he had knowledge about the creation of the Universe before hand. I think that knowing something before hand qualifies as potentiality. But this would require time to have existed before the creation of the universe in order for me to say before hand. This is clearly a paradox.

There was no "before" the universe. "Before" is a temporal term that has no meaning outside of a temporal context. Since God is not temporal, and since the creation even is not inside the universe, this it absurd to talk about what happened "before" it. You may as well ask what's the next number after infinity or how much purple weighs. It's just a category error.

As to your point, knowing something beforehand would be potentiality, if only because I have the potential for seeing what I know will happen actually happen; when it actually happens, that knowledge has been actualized. But, of course, God doesn't know anything beforehand (philosophically speaking) because God is not temporal.

You, then, answer your own question. You note correctly that your "paradox" would require time to have existed before the creation of the universe. But not only is that not the case, it cannot be the case. So there is no paradox at all, anymore than saying I can't really drive to Narnia is a paradox r that I can't tell you what the number after infinity is. All we have to do is reject to self-contradictory assumptions that there was time before the universe or that God is temporal.

It's hardly a paradox. Time travel into the past is impossible, because the past does not exist. You can't really go to the past any more than you can really go to Narnia.

Actually, recent discoveries at the LHC seem to point towards time travel being possible to the past. Of course, we don't have the current understanding and technology to do it, but it is theoretically possible.

Now let's assume that time travel is possible, but even more:

There was no "before" the universe. "Before" is a temporal term that has no meaning outside of a temporal context. Since God is not temporal, and since the creation even is not inside the universe, this it absurd to talk about what happened "before" it. You may as well ask what's the next number after infinity or how much purple weighs. It's just a category error.

If God is not temporal that doesn't mean that time didn't exist before the universe. It just means that God is not affected by time.

So depending on which assumption you want to make, "before" can actually make sense, but even more than that, if we ever travel back in time, we could actually witness the creation of the universe.

So let's assume that time did exist before the universe was created. Now that is interesting

God doesn't know anything beforehand (philosophically speaking) because God is not temporal.

He knows just because he knows. But I am talking from a human being's perspective. That's the only perspective you have. God does know before hand.
You can describe God as being non-temporal, but there is no real definition for such a concept. We don't even know what time is scientifically speaking. You can try and imagine, but then again, that is an attribute that only God can experience. Then I ask you: what is the actual validity of your definition of God when you say he is non temporal? It can be an educated guess.

I think that is my main dilemma: how can you describe God and say that you have a rigorous and valid theory given the fact that you are talking about an "entity" which basically exists outside our universe/space-time continuum? We don't even know how our universe works.

BryanH wrote:Actually, recent discoveries at the LHC seem to point towards time travel being possible to the past. Of course, we don't have the current understanding and technology to do it, but it is theoretically possible.

Incorrect. At best, the model you are talking about posits what are called closed timelike curves (CTCs) within a particular theory called M-Theory, and if all of that is acceptable, then the paper you are referring to argues, "From our brane point of view, many of these KK
modes would appear to travel backward in time."

There are several problems with this statement as far as it being any kind of support for your view:

1. The notion of "time" here is different from the popular sense. "Time" is here concerned with a particular set of equations that only matters in the quantum sciences -- they man absolutely nothing to you and me.
2. The "time travel" is illusory in the absolute sense from two perspectives:
a) The "time travel" only affects these particles from our point of view;
b) The "time travel" is only apparent.

In reality, the CTCs are present realities, and the changes have to do with the shape or topography of the space-time continuum. Again, I want to emphasize, all of that is present reality.

To emphasize, when you talk about "real" time travel, you are positing a self-contradiction. When you suggest that a message can come "from the future," you are saying that something that does not exist is doing something. And when you suggest that we can send messages "to the past," you are saying that we can put particles in a place that does not exist. If you can't see the absurdity of that, then I can't help you any further. You might do well to read this paper, though, as it might provide you with some helpful insights:

http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain ... nguine.htm

As far as the paper dealing with the LHC and the possibility of time travel, you can work you way through it here, if you need a good nap:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1373v3.pdf

If God is not temporal that doesn't mean that time didn't exist before the universe. It just means that God is not affected by time.

So depending on which assumption you want to make, "before" can actually make sense, but even more than that, if we ever travel back in time, we could actually witness the creation of the universe.

So let's assume that time did exist before the universe was created. Now that is interesting

Incorrect. In order for time to exist, there must be a universe. That's just definitional. Of course, you can argue over the definition of "universe" if you like, but that won't really get you anywhere. The fact remains that even if you come up with a theory that doesn't require an absolute beginning in time, it doesn't change anything I've said here. In fact, it just makes my point that much easier to see. If the universe is eternal (or if the universe exists as a bubble of some sort within some "super-reality" that has always existed) then there is still no "before" the universe.

The bottom line here is that you can't talk about what is "before" time. Even if you could witness the creation of the universe--which you can't, because that doesn't exist anymore, and you can't witness a non-existent thing--nothing I've said would be challenged in the least. Go back and read my comments to Paul carefully on the distinction in the Kalam version of the First Cause arguments and Aquinas' version of the First Cause argument.

He knows just because he knows. But I am talking from a human being's perspective. That's the only perspective you have. God does know before hand.
You can describe God as being non-temporal, but there is no real definition for such a concept. We don't even know what time is scientifically speaking. You can try and imagine, but then again, that is an attribute that only God can experience. Then I ask you: what is the actual validity of your definition of God when you say he is non temporal? It can be an educated guess.

We can talk about God knowing beforehand, sure. But that's just loose speak, and loose speak doesn't have any value when we get down to the real issues. But more importantly, you are incorrect again. We do have another perspective. It is called a tenseless perspective. That is, we can distinguish between tensed facts and tenseless facts. For instance:

Tensed fact: Jac is will soon submit this message.
Tenseless fact: On July 20, 2013, Jack submits a message.

The tensed fact is true relative to time. It is true for me, right now (it's also true for you, right now, where by "now" I mean the moment I am writing this, that is, 9:43pm EST, 7/20/2013). By the time you read this, though, that tensed fact will, in fact, be false. What will remain true is the tenseless fact. God knows everything in a tenseless manner, and that is precisely why you can't say God knows anything "beforehand," because "beforehand" only applies to tensed facts.

As such, I don't need an educated guess. I've given you an absolute fact. Time is nothing more than the measurement of change. Where there is no change, there is no time. Change is nothing more than the actualization of some potentiality. Thus, where there is no potentiality, there is no change, so there is no time. God is pure act with no potentiality, so God cannot change, and therefore God is not temporal. God knows all things in a tenseless manner. You, on the other hand, only know some things in a tenseless manner, and you are a person of great potentiality. Therefore, you can only relate to God's manner of existence by analogy, which, by the way, is exactly what the biblical writers did as well. We use loose speak. We talk about Him knowing things "beforehand," because we know some things beforehand, and we know that God knows those things, too, so we figure there is some sense in which God "knows the future." In the end, it's all highly metaphorical language, which is fine. The problem comes when you then start calling the notion of God incoherent because you take that metaphorical language about God as strictly literal. But the moment you've done that, you've ceased talking about God at all.

I think that is my main dilemma: how can you describe God and say that you have a rigorous and valid theory given the fact that you are talking about an "entity" which basically exists outside our universe/space-time continuum? We don't even know how our universe works.

We don't have to know how our universe works to understand God. God is not subject to scientific scrutiny. This is one of the great mistakes that atheists make. It doesn't make them in the least intelligent or critical or clear thinking to demand scientific demonstration of God. It makes them fools who don't even understand their own discipline.

Science presupposes certain metaphysical assumptions. It always does. There is no way to get around that. Science cannot test metaphysical assumptions. Metaphysics does that. What science does is test the way the material universe operates under certain conditions and then comes up with generalizations in light of those observations. God, of course, is neither material nor a part of the universe, so to suggest that God could in principle be a matter of scientific scrutiny is absurd. And to suggest that God is therefore no truly knowable (as atheists are wont to do) is equally or even more fallacious, because such assumes that all that is knowable is knowable by science. You should be able to see the clear contradiction in that, though, for that statement is not knowable by science. It's a philosophical--that is, metaphysical--assumption. And it is a wrong one at that.

In my experience, scientists tend to make terrible philosophers, although it need not be so. All you have to do to answer you question above is to stop thinking about God using tools designed to understand the interrelationships of material components of the universe. Once you get that idea out of your mind, you'll be free to see things as they really are.

*Raises hand*

Hello.

Sorry to have come into the thread very late.

Jac3510 wrote:Time is nothing more than the measurement of change. Where there is no change, there is no time.

This idea/concept has me intrigued.

Can you offer a possible example of some where/thing that has experienced no change and hence/possibly no time?

Very much cheers to all.

Thadeyus wrote:*Raises hand*

Hello.

Sorry to have come into the thread very late.

Jac3510 wrote:Time is nothing more than the measurement of change. Where there is no change, there is no time.

This idea/concept has me intrigued.

Can you offer a possible example of some where/thing that has experienced no change and hence/possibly no time?

Very much cheers to all.

I'll let Jac respond to his own.

But this (timelessness = no change) is a fundamental often hidden premise in William Craig's Kalam argument that I find many do not get.

Why can't the universe or matter be the eternal something? Why posit God?

The response is that unintelligent matter that has no will and power, would just be what it is in an unchanged state for eternity. For unintelligent matter has no will to bring about change inside/outside of itself. For example, eternal matter that is ice that exists in/of itself will be forever ice. To change requires either 1) an exercise of will and power to change, or 2) an external influence (but if there is an external influence that caused the "ice" to melt, then we could fairly say that such matter was not eternal after all).

Therefore, given the universe exists, but we know it once was not, and we experience change (cause and effect, time, etc), the eternal something that exists must be an intelligence of some sort that has a will to change and the power to have caused all we now experience.

This eternal something -- this intelligent being (or "pure act" if you prefer Jac ) -- is what I call God.

Kurieuo wrote:I'll let Jac respond to his own.

But this (timelessness = no change) is a fundamental often hidden premise in William Craig's Kalam argument that I find many do not get.

Why can't the universe or matter be the eternal something? Why posit God?

The response is that unintelligent matter that has no will and power, would just be what it is in an unchanged state for eternity. For unintelligent matter has no will to bring about change inside/outside of itself. For example, eternal matter that is ice that exists in/of itself will be forever ice. To change requires either 1) an exercise of will and power to change, or 2) an external influence (but if there is an external influence that caused the "ice" to melt, then we could fairly say that such matter was not eternal after all).

Therefore, given the universe exists, but we know it once was not, and we experience change (cause and effect, time, etc), the eternal something that exists must be an intelligence of some sort that has a will to change and the power to have caused all we now experience.

This eternal something -- this intelligent being (or "pure act" if you prefer Jac ) -- is what I call God.

Thank you for your response.

Um...my thoughts are that matter does simply change. Simply by the interaction of matter. Vast tracts of our solar system seem quite content to roll around and here and there randomly smash into itself....

No 'Will' or 'Thought' about. As for 'External influence', how far afield does one have to go before there is no farther 'external influences' can be found?

And our universe has a beginning does it not? Which science supports. So we have a material/physical universe that changes from one state to the next that is not eternal. If it were eternal then it would be in a change less "steady state".