Arguments Against an Eternal Universe

Actual Infinite Series Cannot Exist in Reality or Time and Space

The universe is an actual infinite series of events that cannot exist in reality for obvious reasons, it can exist in set theory, conceptual space, but not in space and time. The major point of this article is that for any explanation to be logically valid and ontologically valid there must be a necessary entity which has the power of self existence and creation. Whatever you want to call it; a rose is a rose by any other name - we call this rose God, they call it The Universe.

Science Hints That The Universe Has A Beginning

But what I find interesting about the argument for an eternal universe is that it is an argument from ignorance. Atheists cannot argue that the universe had a beginning (which science is proving e.g. the red shift showing an expanding universe and the second law of thermodynamics), But no scientist can ever prove how when or if the universe had a beginning. No scientist can ever recreate creation or prove an eternal being or item in a laboratory, hence all they can give us is a bunch of fifty cent words to disguise their worldviews and atheistic presuppositions, and a theory that demands as much faith as the theory of God. BTW all people have faith as all knowledge is a justified true belief. Science is leaning toward the belief in a "red shift" which shows an expanding universe but the Eternal Universe group was quick to rebut this with the theory of oscillation where by the universe merely expands and contracts - more hot air!

The Eternal Universe Argument Has No Defensible Grounding

We do know that there is no such a thing as objectivity among mankind and we can only go as far as we are willing to accept certain basic beliefs that are agreed upon to avoid an infinite regress (at least the atheist is caught in this quagmire). So the atheist who denies transcendental laws of reason only has "convention' to ground her beliefs in which these beliefs are not science, but again back to philosophy. In fact all of science (especially physics) is grounded in convention in the atheist realm and their laws are arbitrarily derived by agreement among worldviews; so what compelling case can she put forth for me to accept her laws? None.

A Necessary Being Must Be Accounted in Any Explanation of The Universe

A Necessary Being or Thing is Required to Explain The Universe and This is God or God-like
But philosophically we can show that it is not possible (an eternal universe) for if the universe were to be a necessary being or thing (which is ontologically and logically necessary), this universe would still have demonstrated design but failed to show how consciousness and intelligence came from rocks and hot lava? and if folks like Hume and the recently departed English Dawkins? (Who is now a believer) try to say that there is no design except for what we impose on it. Then what they are saying is that we (being part of the universe) rather the universe is imposing design on itself. Makes sense ha?

An axiom of science is ex nihilo nihilo fit Latin for Nothing comes from nothing. All items which exist in the universe are contingent, and derived. They owe their existence to something else. In other words the material universe lack the qualities of eternalness and cannot be the source of itself. This implies that some other eternal being is responsible for causing the universe and bringing it into being and sustaining it. The Bible addresses this issue for Paul wrote in the book of Acts “In Him we live and move and have our being” and he also wrote in Colossians “For in Him (Christ) all things hold together. 

A Necessary Being or Thing Has No Potential - Yet The Universe Does

Another point would be that ontologically an eternal object or being has no potentiality but exists eternally, yet we see potential energy, higher forms of life supposedly evolving from lower forms of life--but the real kicker is that in order for an atheist to have any traction she must dispose of a Creator or unmoved mover - yet she has not. She has merely renamed this unmoved mover - the One with self sustaining existence, from God to "the Universe". So as hard as she tries she cannot ditch the fact that a universe with or without beginning of time requires or unmoved mover with self existent power that is also immutable; and this unmoved mover is either God or the universe. Personally I like the God of the Bible more than the God of the atheist whom they refer to as Mother Nature.

What say you Ms. Atheist?