New evidence of a possible cyclic universe.

[shunyadragon]

An infinite regression has no beginning, no first event.

So what?!?!?! Infinite regression? This is an assertion how do propose to apply this to the argument?

Potential infinite best describes the possibility of an infinite and/or eternal physical existence, and an eternal Natural Law..

There are two possibilities:

A: That God from eternity never created anything until one unique first creation.
Where in eternity prior to that creation God was not yet a creator.

B: That God from eternity created. That there was never any first unique creation.
God was always the Creator.

The Baha'i view is B, our physical existence has always existed, and there was never any first unique Creation.

[37818]

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but the fact that an infinite regress has no first event is precisely the reason why there can be no succeeding causes, making it essentially a fixed state that can never change.

You do not know that, except the fact our know universe was created [ex nihilo].

As for your two possibilities, you seem to be wrestling with the question, "If God is infinite then when did he decide to create the universe?" and answer B seems to be the most correct: God eternally willed its creation. To talk of God in terms of "before and after creation" is incoherent.

For me this is well thought out. Either God made one first unique creation or God has made infinite creations in eternity, there never being any one first creation. There is only those two possibilities.

[37818]

So what?!?!?! Infinite regression? This is an assertion how do propose to apply this to the argument?

Potential infinite best describes the possibility of an infinite and/or eternal physical existence, and an eternal Natural Law..

What do you mean?

The Baha'i view is B, our physical existence has always existed, and there was never any first unique Creation.

The ex nihilo can include a creation that is eternal, in that, it had no first physical cause. The Son of God, being the reason for all things that are caused (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:3).

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean?

Infinite regression is simply as assertion??? of what???

The ex nihilo can include a creation that is eternal, in that, it had no first physical cause. The Son of God, being the reason for all things that are caused (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:3).

That is possible, but as stated B) our physical existence has always existed, and there was never any first unique Creation. which is clear there was no beginning of Creation, and it is eternal with God.

[37818]

Infinite regression is simply as assertion??? of what???

Of the physical existence?

That is possible, but as stated B) our physical existence has always existed, and there was never any first unique Creation. which is clear there was no beginning of Creation, and it is eternal with God.

Our physical existence has not always existed. Our solar system solidified only some 4.5 billion years ago. And our apparent observable universe is only some 13.8 billion years on going. And the supposed eternal universe, the physical regression of existence would have no first existence. In Christian theology, Christ as Creator would be the sole reason (John 1:3) if an eternal physical for the universe is true.

[shunyadragon]

Of the physical existence?


Our physical existence has not always existed.

This is an assertion based on your religious agenda. There is no objective verifiable evidence that our physical existence is finite and dtemporal, nor infinite or eternal. Noe absolutely none.

Our solar system solidified only some 4.5 billion years ago.

OK

And our apparent observable universe is only some 13.8 billion years on going. And the supposed eternal universe, the physical regression of existence would have no first existence.

The claim of infinite regression is meaningless. Our physical existence is potentially infinite and/or eternal.

There is no verifiable evidence for the above assertion. If the possible multiverse hypothesis, and/or the cyclic universe or Black Hole universe hypothesis are true than our physical existence is possibly eternal and/or infinite.

In Christian theology, Christ as Creator would be the sole reason (John 1:3) if an eternal physical for the universe is true.

An assertion of belief without any objective verifiable evidence.

[37818]

<snip>
If the possible multiverse hypothesis, and/or the cyclic universe or Black Hole universe hypothesis are true than our physical existence is possibly eternal and/or infinite.
<snip>

Of beliefs without any objective verifiable evidence.

[Mountain Man]

You do not know that, except the fact our know universe was created [ex nihilo].

Yes, I do know that, because it is impossible to logically describe an infinite regression of events. You either have nothing happening, or everything happening at once, neither of which are coherent explanations. Your confusion regarding the act of creation is that you seem to think that God chose to create at some fixed point along an infinite timeline, but that misunderstands God's nature and his relationship to the creation process. God's will to create was eternal, and so it happened. There was no period of time before God created, and there is no period of time after God created.

[shunyadragon]

Of beliefs without any objective verifiable evidence.

Yes, that is the problem with your position.

[37818]

Yes, that is the problem with your position.

And that is your belief.

[shunyadragon]

And that is your belief.

No my belief is the Baha'i Faith. Any consideration I have given in this thread, and other threads of Natural Science 301 is based on science

[37818]

Yes, I do know that, because it is impossible to logically describe an infinite regression of events.

Ah, the argument that there was no first cause in a sequence of on going causes is the logical argument. Your argument that it is impossible is a mere disallowing, nothing more.

You either have nothing happening, or everything happening at once, neither of which are coherent explanations.

But the argument is neither. The argument is that there is no first event to an infinite series with no beginning.

Your confusion regarding the act of creation is that you seem to think that God chose to create at some fixed point along an infinite timeline, but that misunderstands God's nature and his relationship to the creation process.

That is what you suppose. I have simply argued that there are two possibilities. 1) A unique first creation. None prior. Or 2) Infinite creations. No unique first creation.

God's will to create was eternal, . . .

This is not at issue.

God's will to create was eternal, and so it happened. There was no period of time before God created, and there is no period of time after God created.

God's word says, ". . . from everlasting to everlasting . . ." (Psalm 90:2). So the two possibilities.

[37818]

No my belief is the Baha'i Faith. Any consideration I have given in this thread, and other threads of Natural Science 301 is based on science

Your religious belief system is the Baha'i faith. But also any and all arguments you propose are accordng to what you happen to believe.

[shunyadragon]

Your religious belief system is the Baha'i faith. But also any and all arguments you propose are accordng to what you happen to believe.

Actually and absolutely NO. All my arguments are in support of the fact the whether our physical existence is 'eternal and/or infinite, or finite and/or temporal are that in science both are possible, and science cannot be used to conclude that either is ultimately true.

There is not any objective verifiable evidence that would demonstrate nor falsify that either is true.

[37818]

Actually and absolutely NO. All my arguments are in support of the fact the whether our physical existence is 'eternal and/or infinite, or finite and/or temporal are that in science both are possible, and science cannot be used to conclude that either is ultimately true.

There is not any objective verifiable evidence that would demonstrate nor falsify that either is true.

And do you argue against your own thinking, what you absolutely have no kind of beliefs in their regard in any way?