Evidence for God from Science

Hello guys, I recently came across this headline, http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/ ... birth.html It's about a recent finding within the universe's cosmic background radiation that suggests that the initial singularity event that sparked the creation of the universe was not the first one, but there were other previous explosions that went on before the big one that sparked our universe. Now if that is the case, does that suggest that the universe is eternal? Or if it doesn't will it hurt the cosmological argument in any way? In my opinion, if it does NOT show that our universe is eternal than I don't think it will hurt the cosmological argument in any way, it won't necessarily help it or make it stronger, but it won't hurt it. Also, here is the link to the peer reviewed article on this finding.http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706 Thanks and GB.

I think apologists and philosophers have sufficiently proven that an infinite regression is illogical and therefore an eternal universe isn't the correct solution here. I don't think this shows that the universe is eternal either.

If the universe were eternal, then how would we have ever arrived at today? You can't get to a fixed point in time, (like the moment you are reading this) if there is infinite time before.

If anything, what it shows is how little we really know about the cosmos. Not matter what we presume.

narnia4 wrote:I think apologists and philosophers have sufficiently proven that an infinite regression is illogical and therefore an eternal universe isn't the correct solution here. I don't think this shows that the universe is eternal either.

Even mathematicians have more than sufficiently proven that an infinite regression is unworkable because it violates finite mathematics principles, principles which describe the very nature of our universe.

jlay wrote:If the universe were eternal, then how would we have ever arrived at today? You can't get to a fixed point in time, (like the moment you are reading this) if there is infinite time before.

That may not necessarily be true. Even on a theoretically infinite line one can traverse between two fixed points.

That may not necessarily be true. Even on a theoretically infinite line one can traverse between two fixed points.

The problem is you just don't have anyway to get to that point. Sure, you can hypothesize a infinite universe, and then make that statement. But it sure comes with a lot of complications. That means all space, time and matter have existed infinitely. Remember, you have an infinite amount of time before you. For example. If the universe were infinitely old, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics would say that the universe should be cold, dead, and lifeless. It would have already run out of energy because it has been running infinitely. No matter what fixed point you are on this line, infinity came before. So how can you get to a fixed point, if you've had infinity before that moment. It doesn't compute.

jlay wrote:

That may not necessarily be true. Even on a theoretically infinite line one can traverse between two fixed points.

The problem is you just don't have anyway to get to that point. Sure, you can hypothesize a infinite universe, and then make that statement. But it sure comes with a lot of complications. That means all space, time and matter have existed infinitely. Remember, you have an infinite amount of time before you. For example. If the universe were infinitely old, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics would say that the universe should be cold, dead, and lifeless. It would have already run out of energy because it has been running infinitely. No matter what fixed point you are on this line, infinity came before. So how can you get to a fixed point, if you've had infinity before that moment. It doesn't compute.

Lol, J I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just from a mathematical standpoint only, it could be argued as I stated. I fully agree its applicability to existence fails.

Here is a review of this discovery from RTB.

http://reasons.edgeboss.net/download/re ... 1215JZ.mp3

I think what jlay is saying is that you cannot have two distinct dimensions operating separately in the same universe. For example, we cannot have 2D objects (square) in our 4D dimensions, because no mater how much you slice up a cube, in this dimension even infinitely you will never be able to make it a square. Likewise, no matter how much you multiply, even infinitely, a square will never become a cube. That's why, I think he's saying, an infinite universe (in more than four dimensions) could not have finite laws and dimensions operating separately at the same time of a lower dimension, it is mathematically impossible except in the abstract theory of an infinite line, which cannot exist.