Can anything exist for an infinite time or outside of time?

We only see things that begun to exist or had been cause to exist forming out of what already existed. Have you ever heard the saying that We are made of star stuff? Well it is important when trying to really understand if they is a real beginning or causation to anything. Because all of the elements that make up who we are is believed to have been part of a star at some point. A star that had only been made up of hydrogen, helium, and lithium. A star was producing heavy element's and when it exploded and scattered those elements, which later became our current star, the earth and other planets in our solar system. And from those elements that our own planet was made up of, yet again formed something else. That which we call life. And that life eventually led to us. And really in the end, we are physically is nothing more than arrangement of atoms... Atoms that once, had been part of a star.
All that happened was that the matter had been rearranged from one form into another.
Now if I take some rock and take out just the iron and then make something out of the iron like a hammer or a sword. All I did was take something that already existed and created something different. Sure it. There may have never been a sword or hammer before that, but all I did is create a new form of an existing form.
So from what we observe when it comes to things causing other things to exist from things that previously existed. Then we can safely assume that there is a pretty good chance that something could exist without a beginning or a cause. And it does not to be a God. Especially when there is something that we believe that cannot be created nor destroyed. Which implies that it was not created or had a beginning but always existed in some form (It does not mean it was not created by God but it does show that if their happens to be no God that their can be things in the natural world could have always existed. See below). Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (See: The first law of thermodynamics). See: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And theory of the big-bangEdited by DarkMatter, : No reason given.Edited by DarkMatter, : No reason given.

This is the science forum dude. Usage of bible verses to prove anything doesn't cut it, since they can't be proven unless you cite the bible. It's called circular logic.Since you admit you have no empirical evidence for god, you might want to try a different thread.

---

"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

Well then explain it, because even theoretical physicist are having a little trouble with this one. They don't "say" how it could have happened, it is demonstrated mathematically. As with the Big Bang and the model(s) for our universe.- Oni

That statement is only valid if you redefine the term "God" to exclusively mean "that which exists but had no cause." As this doesn't actually fit with any previously used definition of "God" (those definitions typically being far more anthropomorphic, including the ability to think and have a will, interfere with human affairs, etc), this would require you to drastically shift the goalposts.You aren't shifting the goalposts, are you, DPowell? But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, "there is stuff," full stop.The logic is simple: if all things require a cause, then any proposes cause of the Universe must also have a cause, which must also have a cause, ad infinitum. If there is something that does not require a cause, then there is no reason whatsoever to propose a new entity in the equation when there is no evidence to support it's existence.If 1+2+x = 1+2, then x is extraneous, irrelevant, and equivalent to 0. THis is an argument from personal incredulity. Your ability to comprehend reality, as well as your sense of whether a given fact is personally satisfying, is utterly irrelevant to whether that fact is true.Frankly, it doesn't matter if something "seems odd" to you. You can think it "seems odd" that the sky is blue, but it's still blue. That's the thing about objective reality - it's decidedly unconcerned with our own opinions and beliefs. If a thing exists, it exists regardless of whether we believe in it or know about it or think it's "weird." The duckbilled platypus is weird, and it still exists. Science has not yet developed a firmly supproted theory for how life on Earth began. Abiogenesis research is extremely promising in that they're getting closer and closer all the time in progressing from raw organic compounds that we know exist naturally in lifeless environments towards the basics of what we would identify as "life."However, "I don;t know yet" is never an acceptible reason to jump to "Goddidit."What you call "less of a reach" is absolutely no different from some caveman exclaiming "it's magic!" It's not an explanation at all, it proposes the existence of entities that you cannot show to exist, it uses undefined and unknown absurd mechanisms like "the breath of life," and there is absolutely no reason to believe such an asserton whatsoever beyond an appeal to the authority of an ancient book which itself is contradicted by innumerable other ancient books.In short: science does not reach, and when we don't know something or have strong evidence to support an assertion, we say "I don't know."Religion proposes deities to "explain" unknowns with magic rather than being intellectually honest.And this is the science forum, DPowell. Here, you need to support your assertions with evidence, and the Bible is just a book.Do you have any evidence that suggests the existence of a deity? Or are we to simply trust your personal sense of credulity as to what "sounds right" and is more personally believable to you?The fact that you believe you've made any valid points or have effectively responded to my own amuses me.

The First Law of Thermodynamics has been overturned in the nuclear age. The consensus is that, in fact, matter can be destroyed.

I'm sorry. Your (science's) evidence for how life is created was what again? We need evidence. And, no, it won't be coming because, no, it does not exist, lol. Careful with the hypocrisy.

You do realize we can't/haven't even seen the farthest reaches of the Universe, right? Go read something. There is a lot of guesswork and speculation to this. The Big Bang, etc., have not been as "mathematically demonstrated" as people would like to think.

And your empirical evidence against the existence of God was...? Please play by your own rules.

I'm not really following your angle, Chimp. Are you a Biblical theist or just trying to provoke a response? Yes, I have read and subscribe to Genesis.

Freedom from outside causation is an obvious characteristic of a universally sovereign God. No, it is not the exclusive definition of God. But to apply this freedom to the Universe is to free the Universe itself from God, so in a sense it commandeers his title as "God."As to the physicists who explain why there is stuff. My understanding is that the "why" in such a case is not the domain of a physicist, no matter how brilliant, but rather cosmologists, philosophers, and theologians. Physics is math...math does not do well with "why."

Forgive me, but you are responding to my response to onifre which I agree should seem simple and not overly taxing. But onifre seemed to demand the explanation for some reason...when it is well-accounted for in and of itself in the canon of Scripture.
So, you can believe it is "made-up" if you wish, but please do not insult me for meeting the explanatory demands of people from your own side.

And, yet, *if* in fact God created the Universe, then the Universe itself would not be independent of causation. And *if* there is no God to create the Universe, then the Universe more or less assumes the place of *God,* no?

There is no hypocrisy. I was perfectly clear: while abiogenesis research is [i]promising,[/]i the fact remains that we don't know.More pertinently, "we don;t know" does not in any way mean that "God did it" is a preferred explanation. Mainly because "God did it" is not an explanation at all, but is rather the invocation of magic.Would you care to support your assertion that life arose because of the direct intervention of a deity?Note: I don't have to supply a plausible explanation for the origins of life. "We don't know yet, insufficient data" is perfectly acceptable when it's true. The burden of proof is on you to prove that life was divinely created, because you have made that assertion.I find it rather telling, however, that you chose to ignore a rather lengthy and detailed post, simply to reply with "lol, you don't know, so God did it!"It;s also rather amusing that you're focused on the origin of life, when that is not the topic of this thread. The topic relates to cosmology, and the origin of the Universe, something that predates life on Earth by quite a long time.So I'll restate my point on that issue, since you enjoy ignoring it:If everything requires a cause, then any porposed cause for the Unvierse will itself require a cause, which will require a cause, ad infinitum. In your terms, your Creator would need to have been Created by a still greater Creator, who would also need to be Created by a Creator, and so on forever.If you propose that some things (like Gods) are exempt from causality and do not require a cause, then parsimony (commonly known as Occam's Razor) suggests that we should prefer the explanation with the fewest terms. Since Gods are unevidenced assertions and an uncaused Universe works just as well as a Universe caused by an uncaused deity, it is logical to conclude that the Universe is the uncaused factor, and not your wholly imagined deity.Now, would you care to make an actual contribution to discussion by addressing my actual points as stated, or would you prefer to continue to risk the ire of the moderators by posting inane nonsense, strawmen, and assertions that you refuse to support with evidence in the science forums?

cart before the horse methinks. I know of the Universe. What is this "God" that you mention? Then quite obviously your understanding is rather limited. I am a physicist, mathematician, and cosmologist - and while I was an evangelical Christian, considered myself quite the theologian. And actually, of all these, when it comes to the nature of reality, mathematics provides by far the most "why".

you provided no explanation. You merely stated that it was not difficult to know how some god could have created the Universe, as if you have some insight into the metaphysical machinations of your own particular deity. And we all laughed...