Is the universe eternal? With Professor Peter Adamson

What is Islamic philosophy? With Professor Peter Adamson:
• What is Islamic philos...
History of philosophy podcasts: historyofphilo...

[@imamThownas]

0:00 - Intro 1:40 - Historical background and philosophical issues (intro) 5:00 - Spherical universe has always existed or has a beginning? 6:30 - Schools of Philosophy 13:45 - Why is Al Gazali so critical of Ibn Sina? 18:15 - Most greek philosophers not believing in eternity of the universe 21:00 - Argument from Necessary existence 26:25 - Al Gazali's response 31:40 - Al Gazali's other response (Infinty) 34:40 - multiplying infinity to a finite number 37:00 - immortality of the soul 39:00 - Why doesn't Al Gazali simply quote the Quran? 47:00 - Why did Al Gazali call Ibn Sina a non muslim? 52:30 - Was Al Gazali as influential as people thought him to be? 55:40 - Debate between 2 Ottoman scholars, Muslim Spain 57:00 - Arriving at the same conclusion either way 59:00 - Conclusion (Peter's work currently and in the future) Jazakallah Khair for the discussion brother Paul. May Allah reward you for your efforts.

[@BloggingTheology]

Many thanks Sheikh Thanos!

[@OasesOfWisdom]

Incredibly informing and enlightening discussion. Having read through and used much of Prof Adamson’s work as a key source, we can say that his writing presents historical and complex thought in a simple, yet entertaining manner. Thank you for another fascinating interview Paul!

[@islamadam8502]

Glad to see professor Adamson again 👍 I would love to see a favourite-books episode with him.

[@AR-tm8mc]

Dear brother Paul Please could you upload more of your interviews and discussions on Spotify and/or Apple. I commute daily to and from work and enjoy edifying myself in the process via Blogging Theology, as my commute is sometimes my only “free” time in the day. Jazakallah and many thanks.

[@snakejuce]

You can still play it on youtube with your screen off.

[@snakejuce]

This was DEFINITELY NOT ENOUGH TIME 😠. We're going to need like AT LEAST a 10 part series with Prof Adamson tbh.

[@deechonada]

JazakAllah Khair this channel is actually my cup of tea, i dont bother with debates anymore not worth my time

[@mn-lt4kq]

Excellent. Thank you both. Lots of questions answered and will be transmitted to few people. So rewards ( Hassanat) to both of you.

[@ahmedtaha883]

Brother Paul, what you are doing in this channel is amazing and extraordinary. I really like how you invite these great number of experts to discuss these interesting theological topics. We miss these kind of discussions in the mainstream religious/islamic field. I became addicted to your channel and to Dr Adnan Ibrahim in Arabic. May Allah bless you and grant you the highest place in the paradise. It would be interesting if you could invite a scholar who can explain Imam ibn taimaya's opinion on the universe eternity as he is always accused of saying this although his defenders say that he says that the creationism is eternal not the current universe we are living in. I think it would be interesting to know about his opinion.

[@BloggingTheology]

Thanks. Its a great idea to invite someone to talk about Imam ibn taimaya.

[@kemallast2429]

@Blogging Theology Thank you so much for you all efforts... May Allah grant you Jannaj... Greetings from Germany...

[@clearskybluewaters]

this was actually very beneficial even for muslims. Peter has a lot of insight on this debate. thank you

[@thistle_boy]

If it's not haram, I for one support the knighthood of Paul for his religious and educational contributions on both social media and in person at Speakers Corner 😁

[@Samia_19]

Lovely podcast 😊 May Allah reward you both

[@BloggingTheology]

Thank you so much 😊

[@snakejuce]

This is an AWESOME video! It's cool that scholars of the past remain INFINITELY alive in modern day polemics and research. Their physical bodies have decayed, but their words live on.

[@Snakejuce_]

Only 40 minutes in, but PLEASE tell me you asked Professor Adamson what HIS view is? Where does he rest his case? Eternal universe or NOT?

[@sultanbin2170]

Quran Chapter 6 Verse 73: And it is He who created the heavens and earth in truth [word Be]. And the day He says, "Be," and it [the heavens and earth] is, His word is the truth. And His is the dominion [on] the Day the Horn is blown [the heavens and earth ends]. [He is] Knower of the unseen and the witnessed; and He is the Wise, the Acquainted. This verse is more than enough to answer whether the universe is eternal.

[@fadan950]

these malahida like ibn sina didnt care about the Quran they gave precedence to Aristotle the Taghut Kafir

[@ee6lpzfzj023]

I loved Peter's podcasts and I'd really recommend it, especially the antique and Islamic parts. I must admit that I lost a bit of interest later on during the scholastic period as things got a bit too technical and a lot of name referencing that was hard to absorb. But definitely a gem for a patient mind.

[@richardbradley1532]

Have listened to the first 50 mins up to now and your guest is interesting and informative.

[@pure_ayhanium]

It might be worth inviting Dr Aron Wall to talk about this matter. He's a Christian theoretical physicist and lecturer at the University of Cambridge that is critical of the notion of an eternal universe.

[@s3youtubevids156]

Very interesting indeed. Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad gave some lectures in the US i think (available on KZbin) discussing the same philosophers which would be a good intro to this topic for lay people such as myself

[@Reewnat]

Can you provide a link please? Would really appreciate it.

[@jing2581]

An hour very well spent.

[@baniadam900]

Great episode jazakallah khair

[@syafiqkamalazmi]

One thing that i notice is that the philosophers assume that God is confine by time. Time does not limits God, its only limits us the creations. Hence, God is truly eternal as He does not has a beginning and end.

[@feezalhussain1977]

i have great interest in astronomy..tqvm for the video 😁👍

[@Ox1326]

I like time zones and planes topics.

[@gr4707]

Fascinating scholarship

[@hisforheart6507]

Except for God Everything exists in Pairs They both Have Beginnings and Endings God said Be (for a specified term) In the (Be) also exists; Cease [to] Be *The only* thing *Eternal is* *God*

[@Jim-rk4db]

God never said

[@Jim-rk4db]

Not everything exists in pairs

[@mikesiddiqtownes1518]

One thing to consider in this discussion: There's no such thing as time

[@mohdhafidz6268]

well, it's logical to ponder about the nature of God by using and observing Al-Quran and sunnah and hadith, but to go beyond that is a dangerous path because we were entering the realm of assumptions about the nature of God, we must be humble and realized that we human will never ever fully understand the whole nature of God and his powers with our capacity or else we'll go astray like what has happened to polytheists and idol worshipper.

[@deechonada]

allahumma barik

[@asad-kc8zf]

The whole concept of infinity , time, space etc is the product of human imagination. These are mere ideas and concepts, what is the TRUE reality behind them ,frankly we don't know. I don't know why we apply the human concepts of cause and effect , contingency etc upon God! We as muslims , are told He does what He does. Period. We humans are limited and He is not. Again He is beyond even our concept of unlimitedness and we cannot circumscribe Him.

[@zaifajs]

As always, Great content Brother Paul! Btw, I think you should upgrade the Mic you're using.

[@BloggingTheology]

Working on it!

[@muslimwoolfy-winterequestr4344]

And if any atheists think they’re smart and tell why can’t we apply the same logic to God then I would say that God is creator of time and space itself. We can observe and feel the universe itself so we cannot say that it is eternal because it’s affected by change in time and we can experience it but God is inconceivable to us to our minds (I mean that we cannot really fully comprehend the reality of God and his actions if you know what I mean) in this life and so we cannot apply this logic to God. Hope this makes sense.

[@richardbradley1532]

Not really

[@muslimwoolfy-winterequestr4344]

@@richardbradley1532 what part doesn’t make sense?

[@richardbradley1532]

@MuslimWoolfy - WinterEquestrian well, for starters, how do you know god is the creator of time and space? How do you know god has any reality at all? I haven't watched the video yet, so I'm not sure what 'logic' you are talking about, but will comment further when I have.

[@Bigboss-hv4ol]

Just your imagination your spouting out on YOU TUBE lol

[@muslimwoolfy-winterequestr4344]

@@richardbradley1532 simply because space and time cannot be eternal

[@javidkagzi]

Ibn Sina had never skipped a single obligatory prayer in his lifetime and was a devout Muslim just like Ghazali so it’s absurd to say he was an apostate.

[@stevenv6463]

A very thorough speaker, mashallah. It strikes me that the Timaeus using "en arche" mirrors John 1:1 (and by extension Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint).

[@skauser]

The arguments of the philosophers assumes that God is subject to time. But time itself is a created thing that came into being along with the existing universe. God is outside time, something that is hard for humans to imagine.

[@blackanarchicreacts]

This is like saying that "God is not subject to causality," which is clearly not true, since to deny that is to imply that God could be something other than a cause of the universe. For instance, that He could be an effect of some other cause, yet also be the Creator--a logical paradox as well as a heresy. Clearly, the believer has to affirm the contrary, that God is, in an important sense, subject to the law of causality. "Subject" is doing too much work here, I think, to somehow claim that the laws of logic are beneath God's glory and power. To say God is "subject to time," as you put it, is only to say that some sort of change must have taken place within God, for there to be a *moment when* existence began to be. And that any change of this sort logically implies a "before" and an "after" in the Being of God, in the very literal sense that any positive act amounts to a change in the mode of every being's existence. To speculate on God's nature, I think, is enjoined on us by the faculty of reason that God gave us. Any sincere Muslim, I would think, believes that their God transcends any divinity worshiped by the polytheist. But to admit that profound qualitative difference is already to make a definitive claim about the nature of Allah (SWT)--that He is Real, and that He transcends humanity and also the greatest idols we can conceive beside His majesty. Kalam, in my humble opinion, can't finally avoid making positive claims (no matter how vague) about the nature of the Divine, claims that have to be grounded in reason and consistent with the other things we know to be true with its help (through contemplating nature, as the Qur'an enjoins us to). Western philosophy has had to face this, also, after Schelling and Hegel saw that Kant's agnosticism about the Absolute was inwardly contradictory, that his system makes speculative claims about the noumenon anyway. I don't hold Ghazali and Ibn Rushd in any greater or lower regard than the greatest German Idealists, in terms of intellectual power or sheer exertion to resolve crises of their respective cultures. So it makes sense that fideist arguments (in various forms from Jacobi, Kierkegaard, and later Schelling), despite their great brilliance, would be equally weak in Ghazali's (much earlier) case. And the same goes for all subsequent Ashar'i that reject philosophy, again, in my humble opinion. (I do find it interesting that Ghazali, while rejecting metaphysical speculation on God's nature, didn't seem to mind the Sufic pronouncements on the nature of God and His attributes. Almost as if reason, with which we improve our natural and social environments, is only weak in the presence of God; while mystic intoxication, which is powerless to demonstrate the most basic mathematical axiom that has aided natural reason, still can adequately reflect marif'a in the same human language. Which seems very implausible to me, not to say sophistic.)

[@hassanmirza2392]

Paul, I was waiting for Shia Cleric Interview.

[@BloggingTheology]

to be uploaded later today, inshaAllah

[@hassanmirza2392]

This Shia Islam interview was very good, I have watched it three times at least and send it to many Muslim friends of mine. Such efforts are needed for Sunni-Shia ecumenism.

[@ikka489]

Dear brother Paul, please reply if you read this. I liked this video sooooo much, however I noticed that an important and critical understanding of a certain consept could have cleared all this debate, and that is that Allah (swt) is not bound or affected by time, so saying what was God doing before creating the universe is a invalid question. For us the is no before the universe and for Allah (swt) there is no time. I hope if you could discuss this with the consept of god being outside time. And all the love for your work. I really sometimes think weather i study philosophy and theology instead of medical school. All because of this wonderful channel.

[@blade4048]

These were views on the universe by most prevalent scholars and thinkers back then. If humanity survives 3 or 4 centuries more, I wonder if they will look back at the scientific opinion of the current era, and think we were bogus even debating this. After all, scientific "facts" are one paradigm shift away from being invalid.

[@ahlussunnahahlussunnah3697]

Super Discussion. It may be noted that Khajazadah orKhojazada and Tusi refuted Ibn Rush . Will you please discuss both of their books against Ibn Rushd

[@donaldmcronald8989]

Nah. The best he could do is to say naql before aql.

[@Gog3453]

NO. because the universe is contained by time and space

[@Bigboss-hv4ol]

Go get your Nobel prize 😂

[@bastabey2652]

a wonderful and insightful interview

[@mael3508]

No, if it was, there would be an infinite past, we would never reach the present, which is impossible.

[@Jim-rk4db]

It’s been more than half a century since the first robust and unique predictions of the Big Bang were confirmed, leading to our modern picture of a Universe that began from a hot, dense state some 13.8 billion years ago. But in our quest for the beginning, we know already that time couldn’t have started with the Big Bang. In fact, it might not have had a beginning at all

[@sensei121]

And yet the universe is expanding and as it expands new stars and planets are being created as it expands.... We were not witness to our own creation... And the unseen is the unseen and we attain in knowledge only what Allah subhanatala wishes us to attain... We are not meant to understand everything in this life....

[@Dontbeasheep345]

Masha Allah brother Paul may Allah reward for what you are doing.

[@humaninside]

AFAIK, it's a gross misunderstanding if someone says "Ibn Sina believed that the universe is eternal". Ibn Sina believed creation is eternal. Which means there was always creator, and creator was always creator. So there was always some form of creation (not necessarily in the form of our universe). So this is not the same as saying "the universe is eternal".

[@salsal8160]

Salam brother paul Need to be on youre show haha

[@abdou.b3259]

I believe that the deserved takfir is only for those who deny the physical resurrection. Neither antiquity nor the denial of God’s knowledge of particulars, because they are contrary to what the philosophers intended

[@TheShrouded]

The word Eternal is a function of time and time is a creation of Allah وَٱلۡعَصۡرِ

[@beehivepattern5695]

Scientist want to said yes, due to issues of "Nothingness" or vacuum or Quantum Field. One thing that Einstain I disagree is Space time is one thing, for me its separated, Because Quantum Fluctuation fill the Space, so there is Alpha in process or a "will" at that same time the creation as "Omega"😎

[@abdulhamidazad211]

Congratulations for all

[@bas6628]

Verse of the throne settled this debate period

[@Desert8888]

Salam Paul, the guest seems to suggest that Al Ghazali wanted advocates of Ibn Sina's ideas to be killed. I think hosting a scholar who understands Al Ghazali's work in jurisprudence can clarify whether this claim is right or false since the guest specializes in philosophy and not the legal side of the status of apostasy.

[@Writer538]

We have to wait and see.

[@saliksayyar9793]

The speculative philosophers were so taken with Greek philosophy that they wanted those ideas to be shoe horned into Islam. It was fashionable to use Greek philosophy as the touchstone of rationality. If course it was empty of reality. The Central Asian nomads looked at the night sky as a domed tent seen as blue sky during the day and with holes in the tent ceiling that become visible at night and through which the milky way is visible.

[@ismailturgut8668]

Think off the Day that we roll up the heavens like off the rolling up the perkaments of whriting. We will than create everting as the first creation.that is a promise.binding up on us. Why a discusion. The koran tell us what will happen at the end off times i dont need . Men to tell me.all the anwsers jou can find in the hadith and in the koran.

[@clearskybluewaters]

I thought if you multiple anything with infinity the answer is still infinity? question raised at around 36 minutes mark

[@richardbradley1532]

It is, just a bigger infinity.

[@clearskybluewaters]

@@richardbradley1532 doesnt make sense. infinity is not even a number. good example is Hilbert hotel

[@richardbradley1532]

@Desert Jerboa I haven't yet listened to the video and will need to come back to you once I have, but a suspect we are in agreement.

[@aijazbhat9081]

I think the point which was made is that how can you measure infinity? In this example the one is twice that of other. So you have a measure.

[@richardbradley1532]

@Aijaz Bhat no, I think the point in the video is that in the time period covered, it was believed that you could not have different infinities. Infinity was just that. Modern mathematics shows you can. An example is that there are infinite whole numbers and infinite even numbers but twice as many of the first than the second.

[@joeharry32817]

Traditionally, we are taught that the current universe (reality) is not permanent. 21v104 The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed), - even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it. 10v34 Say: "Of your 'partners', can any originate creation and repeat it?" Say: "It is God Who originates creation and repeats it: then how are ye deluded away (from the truth)?" 36v73 Say: He will revive them Who produced them at the first, for He is Knower of every creation, 69v13-16 When the trumpet is blown with a single blast; and the earth and the mountains are lifted up and crushed with a single blow, then, on that day, the terror shall come to pass, and heaven shall be split, for upon that day it shall be very frail. ... " There might be other universes and this is plausible, but the verses in the Quran in many place noted that this reality is not permanent. A new creation is not at all difficult for God 50v15 Were We then weary with the first Creation, that they should be in confused doubt about a new Creation?

[@zainiabdullah621]

The Noble Qur'an describe all will be destroyed (that its not eternal, even the angels will die) except the 'Face of Allah/God' remains ... and the Universe will be recreated ... Wallaahu A'lam Question: Will the SOUL be destroyed too? (QS al Hijr 15: 29) ALLAHH/GOD says: "I have breathed into him of MY Spirit." The question of the Soul and its survival after death is one of the basic teachings of Islam. One half of the undeniable teachings of Islam is based on the doctrine that soul is independent of the body and that it continues to exist after death. All real human values are based on this truth, without which they will be nothing more than a figment of imagination. All the verses that speak of life immediately after death, a few examples of which we propose to quote, prove that the soul is a reality independent of the body and that it continues to exist even when the body has been annihilated.

[@SAM_KBI]

Which verse? Moreover, destroying and put something out of existence are 2 different things.

[@dabbetul]

Peter means rock. Therefore Peter Adamson is al-Hajar ibn Adam 😉

[@abdou.b3259]

The sages who said that God's knowledge encompasses the universals did not mean what their accusers went to, that in that there is an insult to the Creator's soul due to his ignorance of particulars. ======= Ibn Sina says: [science of duty] The knowledge of the Creator for its own sake does not know as He knows things with knowledge, and And knowledge is a symptom that dissolves the soul, and its knowledge is not learned from outside, rather it knows things from itself. The Creator knows for its own sake, for He knows things, their parts and their whole, as they are in terms of their partiality and their totality, their immutability, their change, their being, their occurrence, their non-existence, and the reasons for their non-existence. And he knows it before its occurrence, with its occurrence, and after its occurrence, by its causes and its total causes, and its occurrence does not benefit him with knowledge that was not as we do not know things before their occurrence. All of them are present to him, for he himself is the cause of them. And he is not astonished by himself. And he knows the particulars and personalities with their causes and causes in the way that his knowledge does not change or be invalidated. And if the particles change and He does not know him as we know him by perceiving him with senses and referring to him, but rather he knows him by the causes available to him that lead to him, which do not deal with this particular person and this specific person in terms of what is referred to him as imaginary. And if a person changes and is invalid, and he knows this person and that he is personal referred to and that he is corrupt and changing, and his knowledge does not become corrupted and does not change with his corruption and change, and he knows all his conditions that happen to him and knows that they will happen to him, and his knowledge of them does not change Because he knows it by its causes and knows its non-existence by its correcting reasons.

[@FarbotBurunetNia]

The universe is a confined sphere and it was tiredly surrounded by many but limited spheres totally confined in a very large sphere: and This master sphere is of many orbiting each other under the surface of a massive cosmic sea. The finite scale of this universe designed to mechanically work for a limited timespan. So, it makes the universe to exist for a certain defined period; this makes it eternal based on the definition of eternal in modern dictionary. I am a cosmic emergency operator in this universe: Fr. B. T. Nia

[@Call2TruthChannel]

Avicenna's claim that this universe is eternal and the Kalami claim that it was created ex nihilo are not the only two options. There is a third option which Peter overlooks, and it is Ibn Taymiyya’s position that this universe was created out of another universe, and that universe out of another universe, in an endless series of creations. Ibn Taymiyya disagrees with Avicenna and charges him with disbelief because Avicenna said that this particular universe is eternal, which contradicts the fact that it is created by Allah as mentioned in the Quran. For Ibn Taymiyya, there are many evidences that indicate that this universe is originated after its nonexistence, but this does not mean that there was ever a first creation. The genus of creations is eternal, but none of the particular creations accompanies God from eternity. Everything besides God comes into existence after its nonexistence, although everything was created out of matter in an infinite regress of material conditions.

[@islamicmessage2419]

Ibn Taymiyyah's view is similar to the view of the philosophers. So, no need to entertain it because eventually what Ibn taymiyyah is saying that creation is eternal and philosopher's are also saying the same thing world is eternal and simultaneous with God.

[@Call2TruthChannel]

@@islamicmessage2419 Ibn Taymiyya does not believe that matter is eternal, whereas the Philosphers like Avicenna do. For Ibn Taymiyya, the matter is brought into existence after its nonexistence in place of a prior material condition that ceases to exist entirely, just as the Quran mentions about trees and human beings. So there is an ontological and scientifically demonstrable difference between what Ibn Taymiyya says and what the Philosophers like Avicenna say about the celestial spheres and the eternality of matter.

[@islamicmessage2419]

@@Call2TruthChannel ibn taymiyyah agrees that matter or material substance as a whole is eternal but only its particular forms are temporal. Philosophers also says the same thing is different wording that material substance is eternal because form cannot exist without matter and matter cannot exist without form in their view hence both are necessary concomitant of each other.

[@islamicmessage2419]

@@Call2TruthChannel there is a 3rd view ie of ibn arabi which has been overlooked which differs from the philosophers view as well.

[@Call2TruthChannel]

@@islamicmessage2419 For Ibn Taymiyya, both the matter substance and the form of a physical entity are originated in the process of its creation. The Philosophers, on the other hand, believe that only the form is originated, and that the matter continues to exist. Obviously there is a difference.

[@mohammedrahman2156]

I didn’t knew ibn sina wasn’t Muslim or Islamic critic

[@bas6628]

The prophet Muhammad pbuh was worried about these over complicated philosophy that tried to explain the Divine..yea use philosophy to find the signs of God but to explain why he is.....and why he created can lead to innovation

[@naserrahman1877]

21:30 54:00 39:00

[@saciabdo9080]

Quran42:29!!!:The universe is teaming with creatures!!

[@heinzdirk69]

13:59 holy shoe?😂

[@HussainFahmy]

[@saliksayyar9793]

What is that ? Another bid’at?

[@bas6628]

Ghazali probably didn't want to use the Qur'an to settle the dispute because that was his ace in the pack... rather use a level playing field

[@mehrourbadloe8339]

The universe keeps expanding is logical to understand many explosion of million of stars on daily basis YOU THINK NOTHING HAPPENS WITH THE UNIVERSE AFTER EXPLOSIONS WHERE THE MATERIE GOES THEN ???

[@Bigboss-hv4ol]

Expansion, not explosion 🤦‍♂️

[@mehrourbadloe8339]

@Big boss Numerous stars are exploding in the hostile parts in universe and from there we get new materie which causes expansion of the universe

[@Bigboss-hv4ol]

@@mehrourbadloe8339 where the evidence that the universe isn’t eternal lol? Even cosmologists can’t make this claim.

[@perfect_chaos4217]

@@Bigboss-hv4ol there is evidence in the Quran if you believe in the Quran , then that is ok and you would believe it even though you have got no proof because our knowledge is limited to really see the evidence out selves .

[@Ali124hdkflc]

Salam. Is Peter Muslim?

[@BloggingTheology]

Wa alaykumu s-salam no, I don't think he is.

[@Ali124hdkflc]

@Blogging Theology That's odd. You'd think someone who's aware of the history & philosophy of Islam so thoroughly to accept Islam. I wonder if he's an atheist, though.

[@scottgrey2877]

Universe six thousand years old

[@danialassyrian4867]

And how does that proves islam?

[@theomnisthour6400]

You're going to get nowhere fast starting from the assumption that there is only one universe and you're in it. Happy Karma!

[@botbat9645]

No.

[@Jim-rk4db]

The universe exists. Something can’t come from nothing, therefore the universe is eternal

[@NK-mp5xp]

Why does the universe exist?

[@Jim-rk4db]

@@NK-mp5xp why does Pluto have 5 moons?

[@NK-mp5xp]

@@Jim-rk4db you don't answer question with a question.

[@Jim-rk4db]

@@NK-mp5xp Muslims do this to me all the time so payback

[@Jim-rk4db]

@@NK-mp5xp some things don’t have important reasons it’s as simple as that. That’s why I asked the moon question. Go see why Pluto has 5’moons. Not very important at all

[@sensei121]

Why do plato and aristotle need to agree to please people? And to fit in with their views and interpretation of their works?

[@islamicmessage2419]

If universe is eternal then actual infinity which is an intrinsic impossibility.

[@Jim-rk4db]

Sorry?

[@islamicmessage2419]

@@Jim-rk4db 1. Actual infinite will be actualised if world is past eternal 2. Actual infinite cannot be actualised in reality. 3. Hence, world cannot be eternal.

[@Jim-rk4db]

@@islamicmessage2419 universe not world 😂🤦‍♂️

[@Jim-rk4db]

@@islamicmessage2419 cosmologists don’t even make a definitive statement like that yet here we are with a Muslim who knows nothing about science making claims yet again!!! 😂

[@Jim-rk4db]

@@islamicmessage2419 energy itself is eternal, it is infinite and has no begin or end. Therefore also time and space are infinite. No begin or end to space and time.

[@justin-lb5uv]

geil

[@kusmardiyantototok946]

the universe is not eternal because it has a beginning and will later be replaced by God with another new universe that will exist forever

[@Bigboss-hv4ol]

But there was already something there lol. Plus the Big Bang isn’t 100 percent fact

[@kusmardiyantototok946]

@@Bigboss-hv4ol and what is 100% fact is that the universe is expanding

[@Bigboss-hv4ol]

@@kusmardiyantototok946 this doesn’t prove it has a beginning

[@Bigboss-hv4ol]

@@kusmardiyantototok946 even the Big Bang theory states that there was something before the expansion. All the energy was on a tiny point. This could be an eternal cycle of expansion and crunches.

[@kusmardiyantototok946]

@@Bigboss-hv4ol and I have a theory of where the energy comes from......energy is the effect of the existence of God's Substance.....so all the unlimited amount of energy in the universe comes from God and absolutely belongs to God.....with the energy that God has, God expanded the universe and God creates whatever God wants.....