Agreed, but there is just as much evidence that the universe has existed forever as there is evidence that god created it.
The thing is, you would look at science and say that because science cannot explain it, that it must therefore be god.
I’m simply saying that I don’t know and neither do you.
Eternal nature? That is a property superimposed on god as a way to provide an explanation. It’s no better than if I claim to know that the universe has an “eternal nature”.
If you can say god has an eternal nature, you can, as you say, say anything.
I mean, what is the difference? God has an “eternal nature” only by definition because a god without an eternal nature isn’t a god, or at least, not a god that can explain all that you need to explain.
But you cannot demonstrate the eternal nature of god, can you?
It’s incredible hubris to claim that anyone knows what a god wants. Everything that humans imposed on god is based on their experience of life. That’s it. God’s properties are just a reflection of human experience.
That said, I don’t claim to know that the universe has an eternal nature, I offered it up just a plausible possible alternative to the equally ridiculous idea that the universe “began to exist”.
Both infinitely eternal universe and one with a beginning are, from the point-of-view we share, ridiculous ideas.
That said, science has some evidence for the idea that time is a human perception and may not be a fundamental aspect of the universe. That is, time is an emergent property rather than a fundamental one. Thus saying that the universe has existed for all time, might be a non-sequitur.
First, let’s be clear…
When I say special pleading using its common usage I mean:
Special pleading involves a person applying rules and standards to others while exempting him- or herself (or in this case the argument you’ve put forward, or would have put forward if given the opportunity).
Which is what you’d have to do if you said that a universe cannot exist infinitely, but a god can.
So your questions make no sense in the context of the fallacy I pointed out as I’m not claiming any of those things can or cannot exist except in one instance that lends evidence to the point I want to make.
Thus, if you want to say that infinity applies only to gods, you have to do better than define god that way. Definitions don’t make things true.