Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Only God exists eternally. Ideas & things are the result of His creation.

FL

Is it possible for something to have always existed that was also created (dependant) upon God himself for their existence?
This is a main point that Jac and Byblos sometimes try and highlight when someone mentions the Kalam cosmological argument.
Something could exist forever (e.g., universe/multiverse), but still be ordered upon - contingent upon - the existence of something else (i.e., God).

That's an essential point to Christianity in general, particularly with respect to the trinity. The Son is eternally begotten from the Father, yet still uncreated. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, yet still uncreated. Why, then, could not an eternal universe follow the same principles?

Presently, I'm reading Jac's DS book, to try to understand that. And now you throw this out there?

Do you actually believe this to be the case, or are you just wondering if it may be possible?
I just would have some issues with an eternal universe. Maybe you could help. As the universe is understood, it is all space, matter, and time. Could you explain how time could be eternal?

Rick, let me try to explain (I hope ).

Firstly, it isn't that Byblos/Jac believe the universe is "eternal", or "infinite" (which I think is a more accurate term), as became apparent in the further discussion.

Rather there are "two ways" if you will upon which something can be contingent upon another.

The first way is based upon time and causal links.
Since the beginning at the "Big Bang" singularity, our universe has physically unfolded like pushing the first domino is a set of arranged dominos.

The second way is what I see as a stacked order of dependency.
To write with a pen is contingent upon the existence of a surface to write upon.
Let's say the pen and paper were both made at the same time. This means the existence of one doesn't come before the other, right?
And yet, the writing on a piece of paper is contingent upon the paper in the order of dependency.
Now imagine that the actual paper with writing just came into existence as-is.
The writing is still contingent upon the paper. Therefore the writing cannot possess aseity.

So if we apply these two ways to the universe -- and one believes that an actual infinite can be found in the reality the universe -- then they might get away with passing the universe off under the first way.
BUT, with the second, well the physical laws and fact there are changes going on points to the contingency of the universe.
For example, we have fine-tuning arguments, the anthropic principle and like which reveal the universe could have possibly been otherwise. Right? .
This signifies the universe is contingent regardless of how long it has existed.
Indeed, changes within the universe signify that it is contingent because it is in motion, and something in motion has a cause for its motion.
Jac could probably provide more detailed and potent arguments for why the universe is contingent.

This thing is, contingent things are ordered upon something else -- they cannot provide the foundation of their own existence.
And so, even if we give into a multiverse, it really doesn't make much difference. For due to its contingent nature it's all still dependent upon something that lays beneath.
That said, I don't believe the universe really can pass the first way either due to certain logical reasons.