0 3 Speculations TO THE BEGINNINGS OF THE UNIVERSE


1) The universe is an illusion- If it is a true illusion then someone or something must exist to be experiencing it. Who then is the one who exists? Is self the only reality, That I alone exists, but which I. Then one must be self created or caused by a greater that really is self existent. Which may mean they too are part of the illusion. If we go with the premise that nothing really exists then our searching for origins cannot be answered. Either way something must be self created or self existent. If the world is an illusion, there would be no logical reason to believe that any of us would all perceive the world even remotely the same way.  To argue that the world is illusory violates our common sense and experience. All one has to do to prove this concept is experiment by walking in traffic, not to worry the car that’s coming is also an illusion and when it hits it didn't really happen right?


2)The Universe is eternal- an eternal universe directly contradicts the current view of the scientific evidence which teaches that the universe had a specific beginning (Big Bang) in a measurable period of time it began. It then contradicts the scientific fact that the world is gradually running out of available energy the discoveries of modern science contradict this view. The 2nd law of thermal dynamics which shows everything is winding down form order to disorder from complexity to chaos from a beginning which means it has an end. Mathematical calculations show If it was as old as scientists say it would have died from heat loss long ago. So it cannot be as old as they claim. How did the universe exist forever and not do in time past what it has currently. What made it change? To be eternal by its nature means it has a constant energy and everything that it has is already supplied. But something was introduced that began it all, something that was not there before. Where did that something come from that affected the order of the universe.

Why should there be anything, instead of nothing ? For the universe to spring forth all that we have today seems to contradict an eternal nature. Are all parts eternal or only some parts? What about nature and its creatures are we not part of the universe ? What was made later that added to its function. First, the world that we live in shows signs that it is contingent (dependent for its continued existence on something outside itself, something that must be uncaused and absolute). The fact is we cannot trace to any single property in the universe the explanation for its existence. if the universe was eternal, then it would have an infinite past no beginning. This leads to a logical contradiction, By definition one can never reach the end or beginning of an infinite period of time; today we see science is validating a definite beginning by measuring time. And they certainly can see an end because of the loss of energy. So their own calculations contradicts an eternal universe. The eternal universe theory is flawed and needs to be rejected.

3) Emergence from nothing- Self creation springs into existence, which requires existence of something before it can exist. Nothing cannot create itself. Out of nothing, nothing comes. An effect cannot be greater than its cause -- and in this case the cause would be nothing. One of the basic laws of physics is expressed by the Latin phrase ex nihilo, nihil fit "from nothing, nothing comes.

" It's a tremendous leap of faith to believe that the universe with all its intricacies emerged from nothing and put things in just like something would that has intelligence. The atheist is not supposed to have any faith which is exactly what he is exhibiting if he believes this. Both Science, logic and life all show that life does not originate from non life. This is supernaturalism and cannot be proven scientifically because it cannot be repeated to be verifiable.  If there was ever a time when nothing existed what would have had that change?  There must have been something foreign introduced to make the change, which means something existed.  Something had to be self existent and it is either God or matter. It cannot be matter since we know from science it it has a timeline. 

For something to create itself, it would have to exist before it was created, and that is completely absurd. Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way. Concluding that the world created or caused itself is simply not rationale.   But it is an acceptable alternative to God creating it.  When scientists say 15-20 billion years ago the universe exploded into being they are saying it went from non being to being, all this by chance. One cannot have an explosion without mixing 2 properties together.  Again the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts this saying energy cannot be created or destroyed it only changes form.  To have an effect without a cause is to deny the scientific data we have today.   This denies everything we have learned and proven about reality, this becomes a non religious philosophy that needs more faith than what Christianity proposes.

 evolution.gif (33792 bytes)4) Gods perspective- Science ultimately cannot explain the Universes beginnings because it cannot go that far back. Science can only explain what is here now and even that is speculative since we cannot repeat the experiment.  We should start with the most basic and general explanation. 

The only plausible possibility which is rational and scientific is that the universe was created by an intelligence that we call God. He is a personal being with intelligence and purpose which is shown by all that is created by him.  All design implies a designer, this is 100% true all the time. He likes shapes and colors and is intricate in the detailing. This being is necessary and must be eternal not subject to the natural laws that he has made. Otherwise he would be trapped in nature and nature would rule over him.  No one looks at a building and says that there was an explosion and there it is.  If there was an explosion (big bang) it would not put it in order but the opposite.

Since the universe has sequence and order and is interdependent on the other parts of nature its not feasible to say that some parts have been made separate with long epochs of time between other parts.   The 2nd law of thermo-dynamics shows there is a loss of useful energy, the sun and its heat is diminishing. It has been calculated from the temperature and heat loss the way things are situated today that the universe would have died out long ago if it was as ancient as scientists claim.  So there must be another explanation.

The bible teaches God exists in the eternal now and he is totally self sufficient not lacking any one thing, he has not changed through eternity.  There were no physical laws existing before the Universe began so God did not create it in time, but began time. Time did not exist until the creation of the world. Scientists look back into space and say the further away something is the older it is.

They look back to a certain area and say this is where it began, we have found the source of its beginnings. But how do they know that if one were looking from that area into our direction, it would not look the same here? Essentially we cannot know what we are looking at, since their is nothing to compare it too.  We lack the knowledge to say for sure. It comes back to first statement God had Moses pen down "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Let Us Reason

P O P U L A R - "Last 7 days"