"Oh really? If the universe exists (A is A; law of identity), is it eternal?"

To grasp an axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered form of energy, it is not ruled by consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe - from a floating speck to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life - are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given - i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.

The Universe is the total of that which exists - not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything.

HOWARD8984 writes: "It can't be eternal, for it exists within time and space."

Time is the measurement of motion: as such, it is a type of relationship. Time applies only within [emphasis T/box] the universe, when you define a standard - such as the motion of the earth around the sun. If you take that as a unit, you can say: 'This person has a certain relationship to that motion; he has existed for three revolutions; he is three years old.' But when you get to the universe as a whole, obviously no standard is applicable. You cannot get outside the universe. The universe is eternal in the literal sense: non-temporal, out of time. [Ibid.]

HOWARD8984 writes: "It is limited or contingent."

HOWARD8984 writes: "It is made up of limited processes, events and states."

HOWARD8984 writes: "My body is a part of the universe and it is running down, how can an eternal universe run down?"

The universe has not 'run down'; on this, theists and atheists can agree. Thus, the question arises: 'Why?' The theist, true to his style of primitive man who explained lightning by inventing the lightning god, posits an anti-entropic god. Rather than examine his application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics [which the theist attempts to use to argue for the existence of god], the theist prefers to argue that it applies without exception - and he then posits an exception to it as an explanation. But positing god, for this or any other problem, is not an explanation. It is an evasion, and a poor one besides. If the theist cannot solve the entropy problem, a simple 'I don't know' would be much more honest.

Reconciling the Second Law of Thermodynamics with the present state of the universe is not as hopeless as theists like to pretend. To begin with, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statement of statistical probability, and there is noting inherently contradictory in supposing that a closed system can decrease in entropy or fluctuate between increasing and decreasing entropy states. But this probability, while metaphysically possible, is extremely unlikely, so it is usually ignored for practical reasons.

More importantly, however, the Second Law pertains only to closed systems, which according to many physicists, renders it inapplicable to the universe as a whole.

HOWARD8984 writes: "Therefore, the universe had a beginning."

HOWARD8984 writes: "It couldn't have created itself, it would have to first exist to do this. It would have to exist and not exist at the same time (Law of non-contradiction)."

HOWARD8984 writes: "The universe had to be created by someone or some thing."

The religious view of the world, though it has been abandoned by most philosophers, is still entrenched in the public mind. Witness the popular question, 'Who created the universe?' - which presupposes that the universe is not eternal, but has a source beyond itself, in some cosmic personality or will. It is useless to object that this question involves an infinite regress, even though it does (if a creator is required to explain existence, then a second creator is required to explain the first, and so on). After all, one must start somewhere. Typically, the believer will reply: "One cannot ask for an explanation of God. He is an inherently necessary being. After all, one must start somewhere.' Such a person does not contest the need of an irreducible starting point, as long as it is a form of consciousness [emphasis T/box]; what he finds unsatisfactory is the idea of existence as the starting point. Driven by the primacy of consciousness, a person of this mentality refuses to begin with the world (i.e., with existence), which we know to exist; he insists on jumping beyond the world to the unknowable, even though such a procedure explains nothing. The root of this mentality is not rational argument, but the influence of Christianity. In many respects, the West has not recovered from the Middle Ages.

HOWARD8984 writes: "To inject at this point, the statement that "God is rational, so someone must have created him," is to delve into the infinite regress cycle, which will end at a starting point (God)."