Arguments Refuting Eternal Universe Argument
Could it have been a reasonable argument back then that everything we observe in our world from a child to a chair is not existing since eternity and always owes its existence to a point in time. Even if we reverse our today’s surroundings we can feel that, the trees and mountains we are looking at owe their existence to a prior condition (seeds, sediments) which in turn owe their existence to something else. If we move back this way, we can determine that the world itself must owe its existence to something and hence the notion that universe is eternal becomes very weak.
It was an assumption, not an argument that the world and the universe had always been the same as they are. On the other hand, human intellect demands that every thing created needs a creator. So to claim that the universe always existed, needs no creator was not an argument at all, it was an assumption