Does a lack of a beginning disprove God?

If there is an eternal universe and/or no beginning, does that mean you don’t need God? BioLogos Im the linked article seems to say no, you still do, but curious about what the forum thinks.

“Does a lack of a beginning disprove God?”

No. No more than a beginning proves that there is a God.

The most you can say is…

A beginning agrees more with the theist view and no beginning agrees more with the atheist view.

The evidence says that there is a beginning. So as far as that goes, the evidence agrees with the theist view. But it certainly doesn’t prove the theist view.

Nevertheless, you can understand why atheists come up with the idea of existence before the big bang and a multiverse to cover all the possibilities. But there is no objective evidence to establish either of these things. So that just puts them on equal footing with the theists because there is no objective evidence for the existence of God either. But as long as theists keep shouting that there is a God and that it is proven by this or that then atheists are likely to keep shouting that there is no God and to give whatever argument or subjective evidence supports their claim.

2 Likes

I think it is important to keep in mind that the multiverse theory is based on theoretical quantum mechanics and the Big Bang theory. Any theory based on another theory does not constitute proof of its existence. In this case it makes for interesting science fiction and intellectual debate, but nothing is valid in my opinion until science has dealt with the elephant in the room - dark matter and dark energy.

The theist argument has a long way to go, for me “Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World” raises much more questions than it answers.

Best Wishes, Shawn

It is more a matter of their being a difference between a theory supported by all kinds of objective evidence and speculation/hypothesis with no evidence to support it whatsoever. The use of word theory in science is very different than in common language and not to be confused with speculation or hypothesis.

Yes, that is understood. I am just saying that the multiverse a theory based on two other theories that have some big holes in them, literally.