Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » Beginning: The universe had a beginning

Beginning: The universe had a beginning

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Beginning: The universe had a beginning Empty Beginning: The universe had a beginning Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:02 pm

Otangelo


Admin

The universe had a beginning

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1297-beginning-the-universe-had-a-beginning

1. The theory of the Big bang is a scientific consensus today: According to Hawking, Einstein, Rees, Vilenkin, Penzias, Jastrow, Krauss, and 100’s other physicists, finite nature (time/space/matter) had a beginning. While we cannot go back further than Planck's time, what we do know, permits us to posit a beginning.
2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics refutes the possibility of an eternal universe. Luke A. Barnes: The Second Law points to a beginning when, for the first time, the Universe was in a state where all energy was available for use; and an end in the future when no more energy will be available (referred to by scientists as a “heat death”, thus causing the Universe to “die.” In other words, the Universe is like a giant watch that has been wound up, but that now is winding down. The conclusion to be drawn from the scientific data is inescapable—the Universe is not eternal.
3. Philosophical reasons why the universe cannot be past eternal:  If we start counting from now, we can count infinitely. We can always add one discrete section of time to another. If we count backwards from now, the same. But in both cases, there is a starting point. That is what we try to avoid when we talk about an infinite past without a beginning. So how can you even count without an end, forwards, or backwards, if there is no starting point? A reference point to start counting is necessary to get somewhere, or you never get "there".

Oppy believes that the evidence leads to a beginning of our universe:

Do Souls Exist? | Mike Huemer (Yes) & Graham Oppy (No) 1h 3min 50s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxSi0htNihk

Lars Bergström Cosmology and particle astrophysics 2006
The Standard Model of cosmology is the Hot Big Bang model, which states that the Universe is not infinitely old but rather came into existence some 13 to 14 billion years ago. It started out in a state which after a small fraction of a second was enormously compressed and therefore very hot. As we shall see, the observational support for the Big Bang model is overwhelming. Also, the fact that the oldest objects found in the Universe – globular clusters of stars and some radioactive isotopes – do not seem to exceed an age around 13 billion years gives strong evidence for a Universe with a finite age, as predicted by the Big Bang model.
https://3lib.net/book/451734/719a46

S W Hawking The large scale structure of space-time 1973
Whether this could happen, and whether physically realistic solutions with inhomogeneities would contain singularities, is a central question of cosmology and constitutes the principal problem dealt with in this book; it will tum out that there is good evidence to believe that the physical universe doesin fact become singular in the past. It would imply that the universe (or at least that part ofwhich we can have any physical knowledge) had a beginning a finite time I!'go. However this result has here been deduced from the assumptions of exact spatial homogeneity and spherical symmetry.
https://3lib.net/book/2063431/6a95b4

Mike Wall The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth? October 21, 2011
We don't see any objects obviously older than 13.7 billion years, suggesting that our universe came into being around that time. Traditional Big Bang theory posits that our universe began with a singularity — a point of infinite density and temperature whose nature is difficult for our minds to grasp. 
https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

Gabriele Veneziano February 1, 2006
Physicists Stephen W. Hawking and Roger Penrose proved in the 1960s, is that time cannot extend back indefinitely. As you play cosmic history backward in time, the galaxies all come together to a single infinitesimal point, known as a singularity--almost as if they were descending into a black hole. Each galaxy or its precursor is squeezed down to zero size. Quantities such as density, temperature, and spacetime curvature become infinite. The singularity is the ultimate cataclysm, beyond which our cosmic ancestry cannot extend.

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity.  A singularity's mass is, therefore, finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.  Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite. Stephen Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' (1989 page 44) describes the universe as being "finite but unbounded".

According to Big Bang Cosmology, the Universe began to exist about 13,7 billion years ago with a 'Big Bang'. That 'Big Bang' an expansion of matter, energy, and space from a 'Singular Point' (Singularity). This "Singularity" is spatially and temporally point-like. Hence, it has zero spatial dimensions and exists for an instant (at t = 0, an initial state) before expanding with a 'Big Bang'.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/

The Bible Explains Where the Universe Came From
The authors of Scripture explicitly and repeatedly state that the universe had a beginning (see Gen. 1:1, 2:3–4; Ps. 148:5; Isa. 40:26, 42:5, 45:18; John 1:3; Col. 1:15–17; Heb. 11:3).

Alexander Vilenkin: The Beginning of the Universe
Inflation cannot be eternal and must have some sort of a beginning. A number of physicists have constructed models of an eternal universe in which the BGV theorem is no longer pertinent. George Ellis and his collaborators have suggested that a finite, closed universe, in which space closes upon itself like the surface of a sphere, could have existed forever in a static state and then burst into inflationary expansion.9 Averaged over infinite time, the expansion rate would then be zero, and the BGV theorem would not apply. Ellis constructed a classical model of a stable closed universe and provided a mechanism triggering the onset of expansion. Ellis made no claim that his model was realistic; it was intended as a proof of concept, showing that an eternal universe is possible. Not so. A static universe is unstable with respect to quantum collapse.10 It may be stable by the laws of classical physics, but in quantum physics a static universe might make a sudden transition to a state of vanishing size and infinite density. No matter how small the probability of collapse, the universe could not have existed for an infinite amount of time before the onset of inflation. THE ANSWER to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.
https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution page 613:
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.

Rüdiger Vaas The Inverted Big-Bang 2004
“General relativity predicts a first moment of time,” comments Lee Smolin, a physics professor at the Canadian University of Waterloo and the associated Perimeter Institute.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407071.pdf

Requirements of a static infinite model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
In order for a static infinite universe model to be viable, it must explain three things:
First, it must explain the intergalactic redshift. Second, it must explain the cosmic microwave background radiation. Third, it must have a mechanism to re-create matter (particularly hydrogen atoms) from radiation or other sources in order to avoid a gradual 'running down' of the universe due to the conversion of matter into energy in stellar processes. With the absence of such a mechanism, the universe would consist of dead objects such as black holes and black dwarfs.

Paul Davies God and the New Physics 2006
Richard Swinburne: It would be an error to suppose that if the universe is infinitely old, and each state of the universe at each instant of time has a complete explanation in terms of a previous state of the universe and natural laws (and so God is not invoked), that the existence of the universe throughout infinite time has a complete explanation, or even a full explanation. It has not. It has neither. It is totally inexplicable.
https://3lib.net/book/1252958/52669a

Paul Davies: If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity, therefore, forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason, most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view, the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe but also of space-time itself. 
William Lane Craig: The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology 2009 page 130 https://3lib.net/book/814914/293e07

George Ellis: Explaining the implications of the Friedman-Lemaitre Universe Singularity Theorem says, [i]“This is not merely a start to matter — it is a start to space, to time, to physics itself. It is the most dramatic event in the history of the universe: it is the start of existence of everything
Did the universe begin to exist or is eternal?- a brief survey 18 Jul 2015 https://www.news24.com/news24/mynews24/Did-the-universe-begin-to-exist-or-is-eternal-a-brief-survey-20150718

Martin Rees - Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?
After 7:55
R.L.Kuhn: It seems generally to be accepted now that there was a beginning to this universe
Martin Rees: That is certainly true in the sense that there is a chain of emergent complexity starting with a hot dense state I think we can understand and lead to stages of evolution
R.L.Kuhn: Now are there independent sources that corroborate this there is not just one piece of data we are looking at, it is a number of different things. You mention the background radiation; the expansion of the universe,
the age of stars, the age of galaxies; Are there independent sources of information that give us even greater confidence that there was a beginning of the universe, that I found to be a fundamental question.
Martin Rees: I think the claim that this universe started from a very hot dense state should be taken seriously because it is corroborated by a whole network of interlocked arguments, and stars evolving and the age of stars is consistent, so I would say that the chain of events, which started maybe a billionth of a second after the very beginning is a chain of events which we understand and outline, and which we should take very seriously indeed. It is an extrapolation of what we know. We had a beginning. Life had a beginning, stars had a beginning. Galaxies had a beginning. All atoms, now we can see some collecting beginning sometime in the past which we can date with a percentage of a few percent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed0Yj6QCSU4

Martin Rees - Did Our Universe Have a Beginning? After 7:55
R.L.Kuhn: It seems generally to be accepted now that there was a beginning to this universe
Martin Rees: I think the claim that this universe started from a very hot dense state should be taken seriously because it is corroborated by a whole network of interlocked arguments, and stars evolving and the age of stars is consistent. It is an extrapolation of what we know. We had a beginning. Life had a beginning, stars had a beginning. Galaxies had a beginning. All atoms, now we can see some collecting beginning sometime in the past which we can date with a percentage of a few percent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed0Yj6QCSU4

P. James E. Peebles The Evolution of the Universe  October 1, 1994
Some 15 billion years ago the universe emerged from a hot, dense sea of matter and energy. As the cosmos expanded and cooled, it spawned galaxies, stars, planets and life
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-evolution-of-the-universe/

NASA: 
The Big Bang created all the matter and energy in the Universe. Most of the hydrogen and helium in the Universe were created in the moments after the Big Bang. Heavier elements came later.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/190389main_Cosmic_Elements_Poster_Back.pdf

Xinyong Fu THE ORIGIN OF ENERGY FOR THE BIG BANG  20 Nov 2003
The idea that the present universe----billions of galaxies----was produced in a big bang about 13 billion years ago is approved of by most of today’s astrophysicists.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0311/0311472.pdf

The Origins of the Universe MARCH 1, 2016
Everything we know in the universe – planets, people, stars, galaxies, gravity, matter and antimatter, energy, and dark energy – all date from the cataclysmic Big Bang. While it was over in fractions of a second, a region of space the size of a single proton vastly expanded to form the beginnings of our universe.
https://www.energy.gov/science/articles/origins-universe

The Birth of the Universe
How and when did the universe begin? Approximately 13.7 billion years ago, all the matter and energy in the universe were created in an enormous explosion known as the “Big Bang”.
https://louisville.edu/planetarium/research/implementation/visualization-scripts/high-school/hs-module-1

How did the universe start?
Most physicists believe the universe was born in a big bang 13.8 billion years ago. In it, the energy making up everything in the cosmos we see today was squeezed inside an inconceivably small space –  far tinier than a grain of sand, or even an atom. Then, this unimaginably hot and dense cauldron – for whatever reason – ballooned at a terrifying rate.
https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/physics-stepping-stones/big-bang

Lars Bergström Cosmology and particle astrophysics 2006
The Standard Model of cosmology is the Hot Big Bang model, which states that the Universe is not infinitely old but rather came into existence some 13 to 14 billion years ago.  Also, the fact that the oldest objects found in the Universe – globular clusters of stars and some radioactive isotopes – do not seem to exceed an age around 13 billion years gives strong evidence for a Universe with a finite age, as predicted by the Big Bang model. 
https://3lib.net/book/451734/719a46

Clara Moskowitz Fact or Fiction?: Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed August 5, 2014
The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, are constantly changing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-can-neither-be-created-nor-destroyed/

Cosmos Big Bang
The ‘Big Bang’ is the model for the formation of our Universe in which spacetime, and the matter within it, were created from a cosmic singularity. The model suggests that in the 13.7 billion years since the Universe began, it has expanded from an extremely small but incredibly dense and hot primordial fireball, to the enormous but cold and diffuse Universe we see around us today.
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/b/big+bang

Temporal finitism
Modern cosmogony accepts finitism, in the form of the Big Bang, rather than Steady State theory which allows for a universe that has existed for an infinite amount of time, but on physical rather than philosophical grounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_finitism

Death of the eternal cosmos
From the cosmic egg to the infinite multiverse, every model of the universe has a beginning One shows that a problematic object called a naked singularity is a lot more likely to exist than previously assumed (see “Black strings expose the naked singularity”, right). The other suggests that the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator. As cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past,” says Vilenkin. “There must be some kind of boundary.” But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time 
http://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407912600797

Mithani, and  Vilenkin: Margenau and Varghese eds, La Salle, IL, Open Court, 1992, p. 83
Did the universe have a beginning?:
At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes. Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf

An accelerating universe wipes out traces of its own origins By Lawrence M. Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer
Dark energy will have an enormous impact on the future of the universe. With cosmologist Glenn Starkman of Case Western Reserve University, Krauss explored the implications for the fate of life in a universe with a cosmological constant. The prognosis: not good. Such a universe becomes a very inhospitable place. The cosmological constant produces a fixed “event horizon,” an imaginary surface beyond which no matter or radiation can reach us. The universe comes to resemble an inside-out black hole, with matter and radiation trapped outside the horizon rather than inside it. This finding means that the observable universe contains only a finite amount of information, so information processing (and life) cannot endure forever [see “The Fate of Life in the Universe,” by Lawrence M. Krauss and Glenn D. Starkman; Scientific American, November 1999].
http://burro.case.edu/Academics/USNA229/endofcosmology.pdf

The 2nd law of thermodynamics Refutes the Eternal Universe
The Second Law points to: (1) a beginning when, for the first time, the Universe was in a state where all energy was available for use; and (2) an end in the future when no more energy will be available (referred to by scientists as a “heat death”), thus causing the Universe to “die.” In other words, the Universe is like a giant watch that has been wound up, but that now is winding down. The conclusion to be drawn from the scientific data is inescapable—the Universe is not eternal. 
http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0102.pdf

Philosophical reasons why the universe nor quantum effect potentials cannot be past eternal  
Imagine that you see dominoes falling, one knocking over the next, as this series of falling dominoes comes into your room. Like a person can never finish counting to infinity, an actual infinite number of dominoes could never finish falling. Therefore, if an actual infinite number of dominoes had to fall before getting to your door, then the falling dominoes would never reach your door. In the same way, if an actual infinite number of minutes had to take place before yesterday, time would have never reached yesterday, much less today. Therefore, just as there had to be a finite number of falling dominoes, there also had to be a finite—not infinite—amount of time before today. An infinite past is impossible. Time must have a beginning. And if time had a beginning it must have had a cause.
http://stayontargetstayontarget.blogspot.com/2012/05/universe-caused-self-caused-or-uncaused.html

Arno Penzias, Cosmos, Bios, and Theos: 1992, p. 83
‘Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.’
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Bios-Theos-Scientists-Universe/dp/0812691865

NASA: 
The Big Bang created all the matter and energy in the Universe. 
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/190389main_Cosmic_Elements_Poster_Back.pdf


A.Vilenkin cited in “Why physicists can't avoid a creation event,” by Lisa Grossman, New Scientist (January 11, 2012).
Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. In 2012 Vilenkin showed that models which do not meet this one condition still fail for other reasons to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”[1] “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” 

Vilenkin: Many Worlds in One p.176  2006 
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
 It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning 
https://3lib.net/book/2696268/ed1b4a

P. C. W. Davies The Cosmic Blueprint page 22
"The fact that the nascent cosmos was apparently devoid of form and content greatly eases the problem of its ultimate origin. It is much easier to believe that a state of featureless simplicity appeared spontaneously out of nothing than to believe that the present highly complex state of the universe just popped into existence ready-made."

My comment: Can you believe that ? That absolutely nothing is now enthroned to cause our universe into being, rather than a powerful God creating it ? Its remarkable how far someone committed to dogmatic philosophical naturalism is willing to go. To the extreme of assigning to absolutely nothing creative powers. Amazing.  

"The amelioration of one problem, however, leads immediately to another. Science is now faced with the task of explaining by what physical processes the organized systems and elaborate activity that surround us today emerged from the primeval blandness of the big bang. Having found a way of permitting the universe to be self-creating we need to attribute to it the capability of being self-organizing.
An increasing number of scientists and writers have come to realize that the ability of the physical world to organize itself constitutes a fundamental, and deeply mysterious, property of the universe. The fact that nature has creative power, and is able to produce a progressively richer variety of complex forms and structures, challenges the very foundation of contemporary science. ‘The greatest riddle of cosmology,’ writes Karl Popper, the well-known philosopher, ‘may well be . . . that the universe is, in a sense, creative.’"
https://3lib.net/book/567583/3bd4a4

My comment: It's remarkable that in order to keep the no-God-needed philosophy, proponents of naturalism need to assign to mindless dead matter the capacity of creation. How much sense does that make?

David Klinghoffer No Wonder Atheists Resist the Big Bang June 1, 2021
If matter, time, space, and energy have not always existed — if they erupted into existence at a point in the past, not infinitely long ago — then whatever brought them into existence can’t have been matter, time, space, or energy. It can only have been something that transcended those, which is commonly what people have called God.
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/no-wonder-atheists-resist-the-big-bang/

Claim: 1st law of thermodynamics is matter cannot be created or destroyed so there goes your god in the dumpster.
Reply: To manufacture matter in a way that adheres to the first law of thermodynamics, energy has to be converted into matter. This conversion occurred on a cosmic scale at the big bang: Matter consisted entirely of energy. Matter only came into being as rapid cooling occurred. Creating matter entails a reaction called pair production, so-called because it converts a photon into a pair of particles: one matter, one antimatter.

According to Hawking, Einstein, Rees, Vilenkin, Penzius, Jastrow, Krauss and 100’s of other physicists, finite nature (time/space/matter) had a beginning.
In Darwin’s time scientists “in the know” also assumed that the universe was eternal. If that was the case, there was no mystery about the origin of matter since the matter had always existed. However, developments in physics and astronomy eventually overturned that notion. Based on a substantial and compelling body of scientific evidence, scientists now are in broad agreement that our universe came into being. What scientists thought needed no explanation—the origin of matter—suddenly cried out for an explanation. 

Claim: The singularity could be eternal. Science does not know if the universe had a beginning. It knows what happened back to Planck time. Not before that.
Reply: To answer the claim that singularity or any physical state could be eternal, granting this hypothetical singularity existed at all, the nature of energy is such that it is always in transit, thus never changleess. As such, it is never timeless, as change of states require time. Therefore, the nature of energy/matter, which according to conservation/mass does change, but can't be created or destroyed, means that any physical state can by default never be eternal. Additonally, as changing states come about, they do so by the 2nd law, as entropy is implicit upon them; hence, these changing states trend toward disorder, making it impossible to increase order/complexity over time. This means a double whammy for those who imagine a self-creating cosmos, big bang standard model or otherwise, since the nature of energy forbids a universe devoid of time and a do-it-yourself, build me up universe from scratch or for that matter any alleged primitive state. 

The Borde/Guth/Vilenkin model also demonstrates that this would not just be true of our universe, but any universe on average that is expanding. Therefore, any postulation of multiverse or other worlds, or baby and mother universes would meet with the same fate as the laws complicit in our universe. They would never be changeless, thus never timeless, thus never eternal and they would trend toward disorder, which makes them incapable of being eternal, thus require a true beginning. Therefore, all secular models, whether it be the standard model, oscillating models, gravitational models, etc. merely push the beginning back; they don't avert a true beginning. Even the standard model implies a beginning of the universe. That is why Christians adapted it because they have seen validation of Gen 1:1 by mainstream science. However, such a model is unnecessary for a beginning of the universe and Big Bang was formulated from already known expansion, which itself implies a beginning independent of singularity origin theories. What is more significant, is if any form of matter or singularity is in an eternal changeless state, then why did it change, to begin with, to produce our universe? Whatever the answer potentially suggested, would mean that the primitive vacuum would have the potential to have a spark, thus something not changeless.  How did that happen, without begging the question, since that too would need something different, a spark of its own, and so forth, creating an infinite regress problem, but the fact that the universe changed to become what it is today on secular models means that it could and was never in that changeless state, to begin with, since it would have remained there and never sparked anything different. But here we are, and evidence that matter/energy of any type required a changing state from whenever its existence occurred. This then implies a true beginning that could not be predicated upon any physical/natural impetus, therefore requires a supernatural beginning, no matter how far we push it back.. All secular models merely push back the beginning. They don't avert them. However, given the suggestion for these models, to begin with is to avert Genesis creation, we have no reason to even consider them as they reject the authority of God's Word, and are fraught with irregularities, inconsistencies, and deadends, despite conjecture requiring rescuing theories to attempt to salvage them.
 
Gen 1 is how we got here. and is consistent with true observational science and both laws of thermodynamics in a manner the secular models are not. God was enjoying his eternal joyous nature, in communion with himself for fellowship in love between all 3 members of the trinity. Time did not yet begin, so God was and is in an eternal state, there was no before, after with God.. Time was created by God and now God reckons with it since he created it, but he is not subject to it, thus speaking in terms of God's requirement to do something with his time prior to the creation of time is sort of a category mistake, and ill-conceived question from one who is subject to time, bound to it and thinks in terms of it, which is fine, but that type of thinking can't be imposed upon God.

Claim: The singularity could be eternal
Reply: Stephen C.Meyer: The return of the God hypothesis, page 143
One might also assert, for example, that the universe began from an enormous amount of mass-energy and an infinitely strong gravitational field since, at the singularity, the mass-energy density and the strength of the gravitational field would also have approached infinity. Even so, the singularity theorems do not permit one to posit mass-energy of a gravitational field as an eternal, self-existing entity, since “prior to” the singularity neither time nor space existed in our universe. And without space, mass-energy (and a corresponding gravitational field) would have no place to reside. In other words, however much mass-energy existed from the beginning of the universe, it had to arise with the beginning of time and space, both of which began a finite time ago. Thus, a spatial or temporal singularity prevents, as Davies noted, “any physical reasoning” about a prior state of the universe “through such an extremity,” and thus that extremity (or singularity) does mark the beginning of the physical universe itself.


The Bible about the origin of the Universe
Remarkably, science, contradicting the Bible hundred years ago, claiming the Universe was eternal, has shifted to the same conclusion : The universe had a beginning, a finite time ago:  

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
Isaiah 45:18 “For this is what the LORD says – he who created the heavens, he is God.”
Proverbs 8:22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was formed long ages ago,  at the very beginning, when the world came to be.”
Titus 1:2 “in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time…”
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”
John 17:24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.”
Colossians 1:15-16 “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.”
1 Peter 1:20 “He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.”
2  Timothy 1:9 “He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time…”

A continuous, universal cosmic expansion

Job 9:8 “He alone stretches out the heavens.”
Psalm 104:2 “The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent.
Isaiah 42:5 “This is what God the LORD says – the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out.”
Zechariah 12:1 “The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundations of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person…”

The Bible offers solid support for the creation of the universe, distinguishing it from other religious texts.
Psalm 19:1“For the heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

Either the cosmos
(1) had no beginning, or  
(2) it had a beginning. 
(1) If the cosmos had no beginning, then there must be an infinite series of past events. However, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old.
Besides that, If the cosmos was infinitely old, it would have reached maximum entropy a long, long, time ago. Since it has not reached maximum entropy, it cannot be infinitely old without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
(2) If the cosmos had a beginning, then it must have come from (A) nothing or (B) something. 
2.A. Although physicists such as Krauss and Hawking talk about "the universe creating itself from nothing," they are using the word "nothing" to mean the vacuum energy, which is not a true nothing. To be more precise, being cannot emerge from non-being. They transform nothing into something in order to claim that the universe came from nothing.
2.B. If the entire cosmos came from something, that thing must transcend our cosmos, that is, it must exist beyond the limits of our space/time continuum. It must also possess more energy (power) than the total energy within our cosmos. We may call it the First Cause.


The argument that the universe is not eternal (from a discussion between William Lane Craig and cosmologist Sean Carroll on the beginning of the universe and the Kalam Cosmological Argument)
1. Carroll pointed out that the Borde Guth Vilenkin (or BVG) theorem that the universe had a beginning only works within relativity but does not take quantum effects into account. Given a lack of a complete theory of quantum gravity, he argued that Craig can not claim that the universe began to exist.
2. This is partly true. One thing known for certain about quantum gravity is something called the holographic principle. Precisely put, the holographic principle tells us that the entropy of a region of space (measured in terms of information) is directly proportional to a quarter or any amount (1/2 complete) of its surface area or any related measurement (radius, diameter). The volume of this region is then actually a hologram of this information on its surface.
3. Another thing that it tells us is that the entropy, or the amount of disorder present, always increases with time. In fact, not only is this law inviolate, it is also how the flow of time is defined. Without entropy or disorder, destruction i.o.w change, there is no way to discern forwards and backward in time.
4. However, if the holographic principle links the universe’s entropy and its horizon area then going back in time, all of the space-time eventually vanishes to nothing at zero entropy, at the beginning of the creation. Thus Carroll’s argument is unsound.
5. The universe is not eternal but created.
6. By the way, this also undermines claims made by atheists like Hawking and Krauss that the universe could have fluctuated into existence from nothing. Their argument rests on the assumption that there was a pre-existent zero-point field or ZPF. The only trouble is that the physics of a ZPF requires a space-time to exist in. No space-time means no zero-point field, and without a zero-point field, the universe can not spontaneously fluctuate into existence.
7. One other point of Carroll’s was his view that regardless of the physics discovered, the sort of supernatural explanation Craig gave could no longer be considered valid. Carroll, being a physicist, naturally believes that whatever the final answer is it will come in physical terms. After all, it is not every day that scientists speak of God or supernatural agents. Instead, they expect explanations to come in material terms with equations.
8. But Carroll may be ruling something out too quickly. A holographic universe entails a world made of information. And information requires a mind to know it. Information never just floats, information is of a mind, who knows it.
9. “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force…We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is a matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck
10. Most probably, a creator 
God exists.

We can come to 5 conclusions how the universe started:  
1) The Universe was created by nothing.
2) The Universe created itself.
3) The Universe was created by something that was also created, with an infinite number of events going back in creation.
4) The universe is eternal, without a beginning.
5) The Universe was created by something uncreated.

Numbers 1 and 2 
we can already slash, they are against the basic laws of science. Nothing can create something, so basically saying, something cannot come from anything.
Similarly, the universe cannot create itself if at one point it did not exist.
IF let us say that numbers 1 or 2 were the answers behind the creation of this universe, then that means a random elephant can pop out of nowhere if we go by that type of logic. What a world we will live in!
Going on to number 3
saying that the universe was created by something, which makes sense. But was that something ALSO created? And if so, what created THAT? See? Now here's the catch why number 3 cannot be. You cannot have an infinite number of events where something creates something else, which creates something else, which eventually gets to the creation of the universe. That is illogical.
Think of it this way. If I wanted to eat an apple, but I needed to ask my friend for permission, but before my friend can give me permission, he has to give HIS friend for permission, and then his friend needs to ask HIS friend for permission. And it keeps going on and on, the chain of a friend's asking their friends for permission. If this keeps going on, will I ever be able to eat that apple? Never.
Apply this analogy to the universe. The past cannot go on forever. If it went forever, then TIME would never get HERE. We would never exist, we would never be here. Nothing right now would exist if the past is still going on forever.
About number 4: 
Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too. 
Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.
However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that this kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.
They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must, therefore, have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.
They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.
The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.
This leaves us to the ONLY remaining and RATIONAL argument, #5.
This universe was created by something that was UNCREATED. This uncreated entity, we simply call, the Creator...Or...God, in religious terms.
This is fool proof logic, and nobody can deny it. This is ALL science.
About number 5
W.L.Craig writes: That problem was nicely captured by Anthony Kenny of Oxford University. He writes, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing."  But surely that doesn't make sense! Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being. 10
From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.
Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Objection: The cosmos isn’t eternal BUT it gets caused by eternal quantum effects.
Response: The idea is from this paper: Cosmology from quantum potential
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381
Wikipedia states:
In particle physics, an event refers to the results just after a fundamental interaction took place between subatomic particles, occurring in a very short time span, at a well-localized region of space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(particle_physics)

Following link discusses the paper: The Time Problem in Cosmology from quantum potential
A world whose temporal domain, which stretches back infinitely far, implies that the moment/instant of now, could never come to be, because the infinitude of time that precedes the now is inexhaustible, by definition of Aristotelian actual infinity.
https://milliern.com/2015/02/17/the-time-problem-in-cosmology-from-quantum-potential/

Philosophical  reasons why the universe cannot be past eternal 
We realize that we can never get to an infinite period of time in the future by adding individual events together. 2  But today, this point of time in the present, is a point of time future to all past.  Correct?  In other words, we are future to yesterday, and the day before that.  Now, some have suggested that the universe is eternal.  That it has existed forever.  But it is not possible that it has existed forever.  Here is the application.  This point in time is actually future with reference to all of the past.  We just agreed that you cannot say that any particular point in the future will accomplish an actual infinite as events are added one to another.  Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past.  Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today.  But we know that whenever you pause in the count as we've done today, that you can't have an infinite number of events.  Which means that there is not an infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time.  Only a finite number of events.  Which means the universe is not eternal.  Which means the universe has not existed forever and ever with no beginning, but it in fact had a beginning.

We cannot reach the present moment from an eternal past
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2049-we-cannot-reach-the-present-moment-from-an-eternal-past

Argument: Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo
http://sci-hub.ren/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X

We propose the ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN) theory, aimed at describing the origin of the Universe from ‘nothing’ in information terms.The suggested framework does not require amendments to the laws of physics: but rather provides a new scenario to the Universe initiation process, and from that point merges with state-of-the-art cosmological models. The paper is aimed at providing a first step towards a more complete model of the Universe creation – proving that creation Ex Nihilo is feasible. We adopt the vision of a “flash of Universe appearing from nothing”. Assuming that the starting phase of the Universe adheres with the “principle of ignorance,” and that “singularity is the ultimate unknowable, and therefore should be totally devoid of information”. , ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN), aimed at describing the origin of the Universe from ‘nothing’ in information terms. The notion of bit-based information at the core of the Universe evolvement is not new. This trend suggests that the physical world is “made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals”  information is the building block from which everything is constructed and that all natural phenomena can be explained in information terms.  According to the newly suggested theory, CEN, in the beginning, there was nothing – no material, no energy, no space and no time. This situation was fully symmetric with no entropy. Therefore, this initial state was allegedly static, with no motive for change.
Response: They call their idea a theory.... This is not a theory. its pseudo-science, or better, a fairy tale.....for adults.

The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9UMDiiE0kY&t=87s

1:15 The claim: Something cannot come from nothing does not need to be proven
3:15 Virtual particles do not come from absolutely nothing but require a quantum vacuum
7:36 Premise two: The universe began to exist
9:35 Scientific reasons to conclude that the universe has a beginning
16:32 Further scientific evidence why the universe cannot be past eternal
18:35 Philosophical reasons why the universe nor quantum effect potentials cannot be past eternal

Beginning: The universe had a beginning Big_ba10

Beginning: The universe had a beginning Bigban10

1. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf
2. Margenau and Varghese eds, La Salle, IL, Open Court, 1992, p. 83
3. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
4. A.Vilenkin, cited in “Why physicists can't avoid a creation event,” by Lisa Grossman, New Scientist (January 11, 2012).
5. https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/190389main_Cosmic_Elements_Poster_Back.pdf
6. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-cosmology-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe
7. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
8. http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-there-any-rational-evidence-for-the-existence-of-god
9. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/
10. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html
http://creation.com/universe-had-a-beginning

The Lord has “Stretched the Heavens” Since Creation Week
http://www.creationism.org/english/HeavensStretched_en.htm?fbclid=IwAR1HLNDPiSqfq_UxjtZoXOvaJMoASWH6fg7oLBX2PrgLanBcQtofGfMkGDI[/b]



Last edited by Otangelo on Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:42 am; edited 84 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

2Beginning: The universe had a beginning Empty Death of the eternal cosmos Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:26 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Denyse O'Leary Big Bang Exterminator Wanted, Will Train October 20, 2013
“These men and women have built their entire worldview on atheism,” says cosmologist Frank Tipler:
“When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because ‘it least resembled the account in Genesis.'”

So disapproval snowballed along with evidence rather than with disconfirmation.

In 1989, Nature‘s physics editor John Maddox predicted,
“Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big Bang is an over-simple view of how the Universe began, and it is unlikely to survive the decade ahead.”

In 1992, Geoffrey Burbidge of the University of California at San Diego taxed his colleagues with rushing off to join
“the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.”

Stephen Hawking opined in 1996,
“Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. … There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang.”

Hawking himself offered one such attempt: He tried designing a design-free universe. To make his cosmology work, he relied on imaginary time rather than real time, explaining, “Maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/10/big_bang_exterm/

Lisa Grossman Death of the eternal cosmos 2012
From the cosmic egg to the infinite multiverse, every model of the universe has a beginning
YOU could call them the worst birthday presents ever. At the meeting of minds convened last week to honour Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday – loftily titled “State of the Universe”– two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos. One shows that a problematic object called a naked singularity is a lot more likely to exist than previously assumed (see “Black strings expose the naked singularity”, right). The other suggests that the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator. While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,” Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech. For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. 

Perhaps surprisingly, these were also both compatible with the big bang, the idea that the universe most likely burst forth from an extremely dense, hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning. His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today. This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same. Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth’s idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller “bubble” universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time (see diagram, right). But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.

“Space-time can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary”

They found that the equations didn’t work. “You can’t construct a space-time with this property,” says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past,” says Vilenkin. “There must be some kind of boundary.” Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning. Cyclic universes have an “irresistible poetic charm and bring to mind the Phoenix”, says Vilenkin, quoting Georges Lemaître, an astronomer who died in 1966. Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up. Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists – nothing like the one we see around us. One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere. Vilenkin’s final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg. This finally “cracked” to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096). If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed – and therefore also after a finite amount of time. “This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe,” Vilenkin concludes. “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
https://sci-hub.ren/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407912600797

Beginning: The universe had a beginning Wb5phYK
Beginning: The universe had a beginning YN8oB5P

PRAYSON DANIEL Eternal Cosmos Is Dead, Don’t Tell Stenger DECEMBER 17, 2012
https://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/eternal-cosmos-is-dead-dont-tell-stenger/

Reasonable Faith Death of the eternal cosmos December 16, 2012
http://www.reasonablefaithhonolulu.org/2012/12/death-of-the-eternal-cosmos/

Beginning: The universe had a beginning Sem_tz18

Arthur Eddington English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician, stated:
“The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural”. (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, p. 178)
https://3lib.net/book/567720/236bca



Last edited by Otangelo on Sun Oct 10, 2021 6:51 pm; edited 9 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Origins: Science, Faith, and Philosophy University Honors 302-003 Spring Semester 2004
1. Light and other forms of radiation are detected that originated from sources which are now very large distances (billions of light-years) away (implication - the universe is very, very big)
The sky is dark at night (implication - the universe is not infinite in extent and infinitely old)
2. Red shifts - the wavelengths of radiation from each galaxy are shifted toward the red side of the spectrum by a factor roughly proportional to the distance of the galaxy from us. (implication - the galaxies are receding, or the universe is expanding)
3. Cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, nearly uniform in all directions.  This radiation does not come from a single source, rather it comes from every point in the universe. Believed to represent radiation with a red-shift of 1,100.  It is the earliest phenomenon that we will ever observe. (implication - this is the remnant of a state of very high energy density)

J. Bennett On the Cosmic Horizon, pg 122-123.
"In fact, the Big Bang theory does much more than simply predict the existence of the cosmic microwave background.  It also predicts it's precise spectrum.  NASA's COBE satellite measured the spectrum shortly after its launch in1989, and the result was a perfect match between prediction and theory - a result that provoked a burst of applause from the audience when it was announced at a major scientific conference in January 1990.  For Big Bang theorists, this was like winning the Super Bowl."

Beginning: The universe had a beginning Blackbodyspec

Tiny fluctuations in the CMB were detected in 1992 in the COBE project - they are presumed to be the seeds of cosmic architecture

Beginning: The universe had a beginning Cmbripples
Beginning: The universe had a beginning Cmbspec

George Smoot Show Me God, pg 167-168.
"Not only did we find what are the seeds of the modern day structure - and that is the galaxies and clusters of galaxies and clusters of clusters of galaxies - but we also found evidence of the birth of the universe, I believe, because I think that if you look at these fluctuations and ask, "How could they have gotten in there?" some of them are so large - that is, they stretch across billions of light-years back at a very early time - that means they hadn't changed - if you move matter and energy arround at the speed of light, you can only cross a teeny fraction of them.  And so these are primordial - they're in from the moment of creation.  And so it's really like looking back at creation and seeing the creation of space and time and the universe and everything in it, but also the imperfections of the creation, sort of the fingerprints from the Maker, if you understand what I mean, or the machining marks from the machine that tooled the universe, ..."

Perhaps the greatest challenge to naturalism - there was a beginning!
https://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/ultimate.html

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Did God create Ex-nihilo?

Could it be, that God is eternally in the disposition of infinite energy and disposes of it whenever it fits for him to create? He can both be an eternal mind of infinite knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence, able to create other minds similar to his, but with less, and limited intelligence, but also worlds through his eternal power.

Power comes from Latin, and means, potere. Potere means able of doing. Able to provoke change.  
Things with power are much more than able — they're able to exert a lot of force. "The powers that be" are those who hold authority.

The potential of energy is eternal with God and when God created the universe, in the first instant, he focussed, concentrated all the energy that is in his eternal disposition, needed to create the Universe, into a single point, which was the beginning of the creation and stretching out our universe: a singularity.  The temperatures, densities, and energies of the Universe would be arbitrary, unimaginably large, and would coincide with the birth of time, matter, and space itself, and God subdued and ordained the energy to start obeying the laws of physics. We know that matter/energy are interchangeable, and matter is essentially an illusion. That would solve the problem of ex-nihilo. God creating from nothing physical. Which, frankly speaking, seems to me logically absurd. There had to be a connection from God to the Universe. God did not only create the universe, but sustains it permanently through his power, and ordains the laws of physics to impose and secure that the universe works orderly, and with Constance. Atheists always question and ask me: How did God create the universe. What mechanism did he use? The answer is His eternal infinite intelligence, and energy/power, both, freely at HIS disposal. Anytime. That's why he is the great: I AM.

Looking it from that standpoint, the distinction of physics, to metaphysics, or natural, to supernatural, vanishes. There Is however the creator/creature distinction. God, the creator, is the eternal, uncreated necessary ultimate being, upon which everything else depends, but everything else is a manifestation of his will and action. And creation, a manifestation of God's mind and power, was created, is secured, and hold to remain existent based on his power. Removing God from the equation then becomes absurd, and creation would be the product of no causal agency whatsoever. Once you remove God as the creator, what mechanism is left to explain our existence? None.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him, all things hold together.

Hebrew 1:1b The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

This coincides with Aquinas first way argument from motion:

The First Way: Argument from Motion

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3170-aquinas-first-mover-five-ways-argument#8835

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
Therefore nothing can move itself.
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

My comment: This coincides with what I wrote above: God has the power ( he upholds possibilities in his "hand"), and disposes of potential energy, which is not actualized, but which he can actualize upon his will. So energy was not extant beyond the physical universe, but existed as potential at disposal upon God's will. It did not exist ontologically, but potentially. Minds can actualize and create things without physical preconditions. I can think about moving my arm, and then command my arm to do so.
That does not demand anything else than my will to do so. Of course we can ask, from what God made the universe, if there was nothing physical yet. As said: What existed, was the potentiality at his disposal. How and why that is the case, is a mystery beyond our reach, but it is what it is, and we ought to take it on faith.



Last edited by Otangelo on Fri Aug 20, 2021 6:57 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Ethan Siegel How Physics Erases The Beginning Of The Universe Aug 18, 2020

Beginning: The universe had a beginning Https_35
While matter (both normal and dark) and radiation become less dense as the Universe expands owing to its increasing volume, dark energy, and also the field energy during inflation, is a form of energy inherent to space itself. As new space gets created in the expanding Universe, the dark energy density remains constant.

The big idea of the Big Bang was to extrapolate this back as far as possible: to ever hotter, denser, and more uniform states as we go earlier and earlier. This led to a series of remarkable predictions, including that:

1. more distant galaxies should be smaller, more numerous, lower in mass, and richer in hot, blue stars than their modern-day counterparts,
2. there should be fewer and fewer heavy elements as we look backwards in time,
3. there should come a time when the Universe was too hot to form neutral atoms (and a leftover bath of now-cold radiation that exists from that time),
4. there should even come a time where atomic nuclei were blasted apart by the ultra-energetic radiation (leaving a relic mix of hydrogen and helium isotopes).

All four of these predictions have been observationally confirmed, with that leftover bath of radiation — originally known as the “primeval fireball” and now called the cosmic microwave background — discovered in the mid-1960s often referred to as the smoking gun of the Big Bang.

In the words of Georges Lemaitre, the first person to put together the physics of the expanding Universe, it was “a day without yesterday.”

Only, there were a number of unresolved puzzles that the Big Bang posed, but presented no answers for.

1. Why did regions that were causally disconnected — i.e., had no time to exchange information, even at the speed of light — have the same temperatures as one another?
2. Why were the initial expansion rate of the Universe (which works to expand things) and the total amount of energy in the Universe (which gravitates and fights the expansion) perfectly balanced early on: to more than 50 decimal places?
3. And why, if we reached these ultra-high temperatures and densities early on, are there no leftover relic remnants from those times in our Universe today?

Throughout the 1970s, the top physicists and astrophysicists in the world worried about these problems, theorizing about possible answers to these puzzles. Then, in late 1979, a young theorist named Alan Guth had a spectacular realization that changed history.

The new theory was known as cosmic inflation and postulated that perhaps the idea of the Big Bang was only a good extrapolation back to a certain point in time, where it was preceded (and set up) by this inflationary state. Instead of reaching arbitrary high temperatures, densities, and energies, inflation states that:

Claim: The Universe was no longer filled with matter and radiation, but instead possessed a large amount of energy intrinsic to the fabric of space itself, which caused the Universe to expand exponentially (where the expansion rate doesn’t change over time), which drives the Universe to a flat, empty, uniform state, until inflation ends. When it ends, the energy that was inherent to space itself — the energy that’s the same everywhere, except for the quantum fluctuations imprinted atop it — gets converted into matter and energy, resulting in a hot Big Bang.
Response: Problems with the cosmic inflation hypothesis at the beginning of the universe
1. The Big Bang was the first and most precisely fine-tuned event in all of the history of the universe. It had it to be adjusted to permit the right expansion rate, a balance between attraction and repulsion, between contraction and expansion, or it would have expanded too fast, and produced an unlimited expansion, and a void, lifeless universe, or it would have recollapsed back to a singularity, a Big Crunch. But also many different parameters had to be set just right in the first instants, right after the first nanosecond or two, in order to form stable atoms, or it would also be void of stars, planets, chemicals, and life. 
2.  The Lambda-CDM model, composed of six parameters, is a parameterization of the Big Bang. The standard model of particle physics contains 26 fundamental constants. A variety of physical phenomena, atomic, gravitational, and cosmological, must combine in the right way in order to produce a life-permitting universe.
3. Inflation is supposed to provide a dynamical explanation for the seemingly very fine-tuned initial conditions of the standard model of cosmology. It faces however ist own problems. There would have to be an inflation field with negative pressure,  dominating the total energy density of the universe, dictating its dynamic, and so, starting inflation. It would have to last for the right period of time.  And once inflation takes over, there must be some special reason for it to stop; otherwise, the universe would maintain its exponential expansion and no complex structure would form. It would also have to be ensured that the post-inflation field would not possess a large, negative potential energy, which would cause the universe to recollapse altogether. Inflation would also have to guarantee a homogeneous, but not perfectly homogeneous universe. Inhomogeneities had to be there for gravitational instability to form cosmic structures like stars, galaxies, and planets. Inflation would require an astonishing sequence of correlations and coincidences, to suddenly and coherently convert all its matter into a scalar field with just enough kinetic energy to roll to the top of its potential and remain perfectly balanced there for long enough to cause a substantial era of “deflation”.  It would be far more likely, that the inflation field would drop its energy rather than be converted into baryons and ordinary matter, dump its energy into radiation.  The odds to have a successful, finely adjusted inflaton field are maximally one in a thousand at its peak and drop rapidly. There is no physical model of inflation, and the necessary coupling between inflation and ordinary matter/radiation is just an unsupported hypothesis. 
4. Designed setup is the best explanation for the life-permitting conditions at the beginning of the universe. 

Theoretically, this was a brilliant leap, because it offered a plausible physical explanation for the observed properties the Big Bang alone could not account for. Causally disconnected regions have the same temperature because they all arose from the same inflationary “patch” of space. The expansion rate and the energy density were perfectly balanced because inflation gave that same expansion rate and energy density to the Universe prior to the Big Bang. And there were no leftover, high-energy remnants because the Universe only reached a finite temperature after inflation ended. In fact, inflation also made a series of novel predictions that differed from that of the non-inflationary Big Bang, meaning we could go out and test this idea. As of today, in 2020, we’ve collected data that puts four of those predictions to the test:

1. The Universe should have a maximum, non-infinite upper limit to the temperatures reached during the hot Big Bang.
2. Inflation should possess quantum fluctuations that become density imperfections in the Universe that are 100% adiabatic (with constant entropy).
3. Some fluctuations should be on super-horizon scales: fluctuations on scales larger than light could have traveled since the hot Big Bang.
4. Those fluctuations should be almost, but not perfectly, scale-invariant, with slightly greater magnitudes on large scales than small ones.

With data from satellites like COBE, WMAP, and Planck, we’ve tested all four, and only inflation (and not the non-inflationary hot Big Bang) yields predictions that are in line with what we’ve observed. But this means that the Big Bang wasn’t the very beginning of everything; it was only the beginning of the Universe as we’re familiar with it. Prior to the hot Big Bang, there was a state known as cosmic inflation, that eventually ended and gave rise to the hot Big Bang, and we can observe the imprints of cosmic inflation on the Universe today.

But only for the last tiny, minuscule fraction of a second of inflation. Only, perhaps, for the final ~10-33 seconds of it (or so) can we observe the imprints that inflation left on our Universe. It’s possible that inflation lasted for only that duration, or for far longer. 


Claim: 
It’s possible that the inflationary state was eternal, or that it was transient, arising from something else. It’s possible that the Universe did begin with a singularity, or arose as part of a cycle, or has always existed. But that information doesn’t exist in our Universe. Inflation — by its very nature — erases whatever existed in the pre-inflationary Universe.
Response:  There are good reasons to deny that the universe could be possibly eternal:

The universe cannot be past eternal
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1333-kalaam-the-kalaam-cosmological-argument#5124

Ethan Siegel Did Time Have A Beginning? Jun 7, 20
When we think about our cosmic origins, then, it's only human to ask the most fundamental of all possible questions: where did this all come from? 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. Whenever we think about anything, we apply our very human logic to it. If we want to know where the Big Bang came from, we describe it in the best terms we can, and then theorize about what could have caused it and set it up. We look for evidence to help us understand the Big Bang's beginnings. After all, that's where everything comes from: from the process that gave it its start.
But this assumes something that may not be true about our Universe: that it actually had a beginning. For a long time, scientifically, we didn't know whether this was true or not. Did the Universe have a beginning, or a time before which nothing existed? Or did the Universe exist for an eternity, like an infinite line extending in both directions? Or, quite possibly, is our Universe cyclic like the circumference of a circle, where it repeats over and over indefinitely?

For a time, there were multiple competing ideas which were all consistent with the observations we had.

1. An expanding Universe could have originated from a singular point — an event in spacetime — where all of space and time emerged from a singularity.
2. The Universe could be expanding today because it was contracting in the past, and will contract again in the future, presenting an oscillating solution.
3. Finally, the expanding Universe could have been an eternal state, where space is expanding now and always had been and always would be, where new matter is continuously created to keep the density constant.
These three examples represent the three major options: the Universe had a singular beginning, the Universe is cyclical in nature, or the Universe has always existed. In the 1960s, however, a low-level of microwave radiation was found everywhere across the sky, changing the story forever.

This radiation wasn't just the same magnitude everywhere, but also the same in all directions. At just a few degrees above absolute zero, it was consistent with the Universe emerging from an earlier, hot dense state, and cooling as it expanded. As improved technology and novel techniques led to better data, we learned that the spectrum of this radiation had a particular shape: that of a near-perfect blackbody. A blackbody is what you get if you have a perfect absorber of radiation heated up to a certain specific temperature. If the Universe expands and cools without changing its entropy (i.e., adiabatically), something that starts off with a blackbody spectrum will remain a blackbody, even as it cools. This radiation was not only consistent with being the leftover glow from the Big Bang, but was inconsistent with alternatives like tired light or reflected starlight. According to the Big Bang, the Universe was hotter, denser, more uniform and smaller in the past. It only has the properties we see today because it’s been expanding, cooling, and experiencing the influence of gravitation for so long. Because the wavelength of radiation stretches as the Universe expands, a smaller Universe should have had radiation with shorter wavelengths, meaning it had higher energies and greater temperatures. Billions of years ago, it was once so hot that even neutral atoms couldn’t form without being blasted apart. Even earlier than that, today's microwave radiation were so energetic that they dominated over matter as far as the Universe's energy content was concerned. At even earlier times, atomic nuclei were instantly blasted apart, and at still earlier ones, we couldn't even create stable protons and neutrons. If we extrapolate all the way back, to arbitrarily hot temperatures, small distances, and high densities, you'd intuit that this would truly equate to the beginning. If you were willing to run the clock backwards as far as you could, all of the space that makes up our visible Universe today would be compressed down to a single point.

Now, it's true that if you went to these extreme conditions, compressing all the matter and energy present in today's Universe into a tiny enough volume of space, the laws of physics would break down. You could try to calculate various properties, but you'd only get nonsense for answers. This is what we describe as a singularity: a set of conditions where time and space have no meaning. At first glance, if you do the math, it appears that a singularity is inevitable, regardless of what dominates the Universe's energy content.

Beginning: The universe had a beginning Https_40
The scale of the Universe, on the y-axis, is plotted as a function of time, on the x-axis. Whether the Universe is made of matter (red), radiation (blue), or energy inherent to space itself (yellow), it decreases towards a size/scale of 0 as you extrapolate backwards in time.

Singularities are where the law of gravitation governing the Universe — Einstein’s General Relativity — yields nonsense for predictions. Relativity, remember, is the theory that describes space and time. But at singularities, both spatial and temporal dimensions cease to exist. Asking questions like “what came before this event where time began” is as nonsensical as asking “where am I” if space no longer exists. Indeed, this is the argument that many make, including Paul Davies, when they claim that there can be no discussion of what occurred before the Big Bang. This is a tautology, of course, if you assert that the Big Bang is where time began. But as interesting as this argument is, we know that the Big Bang isn’t where time began anymore. Ever since we’ve made modern, detailed measurements of the cosmos, we’ve learned that this extrapolation to a singularity must be wrong.

In particular, the patterns and magnitudes of the fluctuations that we've discovered in the modern radiation left over from that early, hot, dense state teach us a number of important properties about our Universe. They teach us how much matter was present in dark matter as well as normal matter: protons, neutrons and electrons. They give us a measurement of the Universe's spatial curvature, as well as the presence of dark energy and the effects of neutrinos.

But they also tell us something vitally important that's often overlooked: they tell us whether there was a maximum temperature for the Universe back in its earliest stages. According to the data from WMAP and Planck, the Universe never achieved a temperature greater than about 10^29 K. This number is enormous, but it's over 1,000 times smaller that the temperatures we'd need to equate to a singularity.

Beginning: The universe had a beginning Https_41
Our entire cosmic history is theoretically well-understood, but only qualitatively. It's by observationally confirming and revealing various stages in our Universe's past that must have occurred, like when the first stars and galaxies formed, and how the Universe expanded over time, that we can truly come to understand our cosmos. The relic signatures imprinted on our Universe from an inflationary state before the hot Big Bang give us a unique way to test our cosmic history.

The particular properties of the Universe that are imprinted upon it from the earliest stages provide a window into the physical processes that took place at those times. Not only do they tell us that we cannot extrapolate the Big Bang all the way back to a singularity, but they tell us about the state that existed prior to (and set up) the hot Big Bang: a period of cosmic inflation. During inflation, there was a tremendous amount of energy inherent to space itself, causing the Universe to expand both rapidly and relentlessly: at an exponential rate. This period of inflation occurred prior to the hot Big Bang, set up the initial conditions that our Universe began with, and left a series of unique imprints that we searched for and discovered after the theory had already predicted them.

Beginning: The universe had a beginning Https_42
The quantum fluctuations that occur during inflation get stretched across the Universe, and when inflation ends, they become density fluctuations. This leads, over time, to the large-scale structure in the Universe today, as well as the fluctuations in temperature observed in the CMB. These new predictions are essential for demonstrating the validity of a fine-tuning mechanism, and have validated inflation as our new, leading theory of how our Big Bang got its start.

But this severely alters our conceptions of how the Universe began. Earlier, I presented you a graph of how the size (or scale) of the Universe evolved with time. The graph displayed the differences between how the Universe would expand if it were dominated by matter (in red), radiation (in blue), or space itself (such as during inflation, in yellow) at early times. However, I wasn't completely honest with you in displaying that graph.
You see, I omitted something in the earlier graph, because I truncated it at a positive, finite time. In other words, I stopped the graph before we reached a size of zero. If I were to continue to extrapolate backwards, the matter and radiation curves do indeed reach a singularity at a specific time: t = 0. That would have been where the original idea of the Big Bang occurred. But in an inflationary Universe, you only asymptote to a size of zero; you never reach it. Not at a specific time of t=0, and not at any early time, no matter how far back you go.

Ethan Siegel: Ask Ethan: How Did The Entire Universe Come From Nothing? Nov 27, 2020
Today, when we look out at the Universe, the full suite of observations we’ve collected, even with the known uncertainties taken into account, all point towards a remarkably consistent picture. Our Universe is made of matter (rather than antimatter), obeys the same laws of physics everywhere and at all times, and began — at least, as we know it — with a hot Big Bang some 13.8 billion years ago. It’s governed by General Relativity, it’s expanding and cooling and gravitating, and it’s dominated by dark energy (68%) and dark matter (27%), with normal matter, neutrinos, and radiation making up the rest.

In order to form modern stars and galaxies, we need:

1. gravitation to pull small galaxies and star clusters into one another, creating large galaxies and triggering new waves of star formation,
2. which required pre-existing collections of mass, created from gravitational growth,
3. which require dark matter haloes to form early on, preventing star forming episodes from ejecting that matter back into the intergalactic medium,
4. which require the right balance of normal matter, dark matter, and radiation to give rise to the cosmic microwave background, the light elements formed in the hot Big Bang, and the abundances/patterns we see in them,
5. which required initial seed fluctuations — density imperfections — to gravitationally grow into these structures,
6. which require some way of creating these imperfections, along with some way of creating dark matter and creating the initial amounts of normal matter.

These are three key ingredients that are required, in the early stages of the hot Big Bang, to give rise to the Universe as we observe it today. Assuming that we also require the laws of physics and spacetime itself to exist — along with matter/energy itself — we probably want to include those as the necessary ingredients that must somehow arise. So, in short, when we ask whether we can get a Universe from nothing or not, these are the novel, hitherto unexplained entities that we need to somehow arise.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Stephen Meyer: Can You Have An Expanding Universe Without A Beginning?  October 6, 2021
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/stephen-meyer-can-you-have-an-expanding-universe-without-a-beginning/?fbclid=IwAR1HU5uRwdQdJaT_rQzuN8Yv6mWa47-TkZsDsSSxJSGwEstXlypeEvJugVg

Ethan Siegel Did The Universe Have A Beginning? Jul 6, 2021
Where did inflation come from?

Was it eternal, or did it only last for a finite amount of time? In 2003, a theorem was published — the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem — that showed that inflating spacetimes are what we call “past-timelike incomplete,” which means that inflation cannot describe a “beginning” to the Universe. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the Universe had a non-inflationary beginning; it only implies that if inflation was not an eternal state, it must have arisen from a previous state that, perhaps, did have a beginning. (It is also uncertain whether the BGV theorem will apply to a fully quantum theory of gravity.)

If inflation did arise from a pre-existing state, then what was that state like? Using the rules of quantum field theory that we presently understand, it could have arisen from a non-inflationary spacetime with a condition very much like a Bunch-Davies vacuum, and then gave rise to the inflationary state that set up the hot Big Bang.

Theoretically, there are many uncertainties, many unknowns, and many admissible possibilities.

Both experimentally and observationally, however, there’s no information accessible to us, here, in our visible Universe, that would allow us to determine how inflation arose, or even whether inflation arose at all. In fact, because of the relentless expansion of the Universe during inflation, it can take a region as small as the Planck length on all sides — the smallest possible size at which the laws of physics make sense — and that region will be stretched to larger than the presently observable Universe in under ~10-32 seconds.

Observationally, this final fraction-of-a-second of inflation is the only interval that has any way of imprinting itself onto our Universe. Anything that occurred prior, including earlier phases of inflation, the beginning of inflation (if it had one), or whatever occurred previously, has been wiped clean from our Universe by the dynamics of inflation itself. The Big Bang wasn’t the beginning of time and space, and cosmic inflation, which preceded it, cannot be the beginning either, unless it went on for an eternity. After a century of cosmic revolutions, we’re right back where we started: unable to answer the most fundamental question we can ask, “how did it all begin?”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/07/06/did-the-universe-have-a-beginning/?fbclid=IwAR1JKODHyEMu93hQGKEucpSyYpi5GKfDfI3J3rhcdUueVfGkQCY9TSWNPXA&sh=75a7ddbc4100

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum