Eternal Universe vs Creator


If you are going to identify yourself as a God fearing believer of the inerrancy of the Bible, you will wind up being ridiculed and others will try all kinds of logical theories to shake up your beliefs. Hopefully we can help you out with some of them. For the best authority on the subject, always check with or for assistance.

You will eventually be asked- “Who created God” or “Hasn’t the universe always existed.” It will posed as a logical question similar to this :” The ‘Universe’ is the set of all sets. This means it contains EVERYTHING (and therefore every person) that exists. It then follows that there is NOTHING outside the set we call the universe. Therefore, there cannot be anything outside the universe. Therefore, the universe wasn’t created by anything because everything is part of the universe. Simple logic! We know the universe exists and cannot have come from something else because the ‘something else’ would already be inside the universe! Therefore, the universe has always existed! Simple logic!

Oh, for everything to be that simple. On this blog under the Science of it All, I have a little discussion of SET theory. Go read it quickly and then come back.

Back so soon. If you skipped it, you reallyought to go back, it will help explain the direction we are going in this discussion and what to say to the person who brings this question up.

In set theory, (which is presumably the framework from which you derive the meaning of the word ‘set’) a set consists of objects. The definition of a set is laid out by German mathematician Georg Cantor. “A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception and of our thought—which are called elements of the set.”

Assume a materialist were to discuss set theory with a Christian. In that situation, it is more than likely that there would be an automatic presupposition by both parties that they were referring to objects which were either:

1) Composed at least hypothetically of mass/energy, or

2) Numbers, which are utilized as abstract representations of objects in the material world.

If that were not presupposed, there would be no common ground for discussion, since the materialist does not concede the existence of anything outside the material (mass/energy) realm.

Thus, someone defining the universe as the ‘set of all sets’ would normally have my agreement, as it would just be an alternative way of saying ‘all the mass-energy entities in existence’; the total amount of material stuff which God created, but not God Himself, who is non-material. What you are doing is trying to make use of a definition of set which normally assumes we are talking about the material (we would say created) world only, but then at the same time, you have assumed the existence of God as a discrete entity within set theory—all for the purpose of strengthening the materialist maxim of ‘no God’—which if true, would make your assumption invalid in the first place.

You might argue that you are simply saying ‘for the sake of the argument’, that ‘if God exists’ He must be part of the set of all sets. I would then respond that if you are presupposing God as an object within the realm of set theory, then your definition of the universe as the ‘set of all sets’ is clearly inappropriate. If you presuppose God at all, then since by definition, God is not a part of the universe He created, you can’t have it both ways. The definition turns out to be totally circular, committing the logical fallacy known as begging the question, i.e. assuming that which you claim to prove. So we revert to the definition of the universe as follows (recognizing today that matter and energy are interchangeable):

All the matter/energy that exists.

It matters not whether all of this is observable or not. In the same way, in classical thermodynamics, a system plus its surroundings is the universe—seen or unseen, bounded or unbounded. The universe (all matter/energy) cannot have always existed (been eternal) because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe must have had a beginning and such a beginning needs a sufficient cause that is non-material (in order to be self-existing/eternal).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s