the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Is something that exists outside of space and time supernatural? Says who?
Our space and time universe had a beginning. All known beginnings had a cause. What could be more natural than that fact?
Are we only to believe things until they violate the pre-set boundaries of our ideology? Who made up that rule that I should obey him? What kind of intellectual freedom is that?
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Needing a Causer is very Western thought.
Great Teacher, cause and effect is believed in globally. It is not western.
God states the difference between the nature of the universe and the nature of himself clearly in Psalms 102 -
"Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. "Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. "But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end"
The observable entropy of the universe is compared to the self existence of God in this passage. The universe is very big no doubt, but it is slowly running out of energy. It's cycles are not eternal.
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Memphis,
Then where are the beginnings which we can observe today that do not have a cause or a causer?
OGTG,
Beginnings have causes, please provide an example otherwise.
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Its not ironic at all. The fact that an expanding universe requires a beginning is a big problem for Materialism..... saws it right off at the knees.
A First Cause is antithetical to Materialism, which is a growing ideology today.
“God, I believe, does not live in a Time-series at all. His life is not dribbled out moment by moment like ours: with Him it is still 1920 and already 1960…God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call ‘tomorrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘today.’ All the days are ‘Now’ for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them…He does not ‘foresee’ you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him.” — C. S. Lewis
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Interestingly, if you go online, some are starting to think the universe always existed. "This is exciting, what a great way to get rid of God!" Maybe I should translate that a little different:
Liberator, the "steady state" theory of an eternal universe is the OLD theory that was demolished by Einstein, Hubble, expanding universe etc.
The universe had a beginning as is "clearly seen". Those continuing the eternal universe concept are not in the majority.
But your point is well taken on the bias of eternal concepts.
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
That something begins doesn't imply a causer.
Why don't we see things beginning now without causes? If they are unnecessary for beginnings, we should be able to see many examples of this.
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
I agree Fisherman. "Eternity" or timelessness (are they different?) must have always been posited somewhere. We can clearly discern that from the things that we can see - a beginning.
His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made - Romans 1: 20
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
The problem is more whether the concept of 'before a beginning' is even useful, and it certainly doesn't imply a 'causer'.
Doesn't imply a Causer? What kind of a beginning doesn't have a cause?
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Which is more extreme?
A. Imagining things coming into existence without a cause
B. Imagining a first cause existing beyond our cause and effect (space/time) universe
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves - Ps. 100:3
what caused the Causer to exist?
The Causer that caused the Space-Time Universe to exist must by necessity exist apart from space-time. Otherwise if he was part of the space-time system, then he would have had a beginning and would also have need of a cause.
Existing outside of the space-time universe solves the problem of needing a first-cause for our observable existence, while at the same time providing insight into the uniqueness of this first cause.
Isaiah 45:5-6 - I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.... from the rising of the sun, and from the west, there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
