Could God have created a universe that has no beginning in time?

[Tom Cohoe]

The cosmology currently held by most physicists is that the universe began with a 'Big Bang' a finite amount of time in the past. It has not always been so. Einstein, for example, inserted a 'cosmological constant' into his theory of gravitation - the theory of relativity - so that the universe would be stable with no change (at the cosmological scale) over time. Only after Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding did Einstein decide that the cosmological constant was a mistake (it is currently being considered for revival for other reasons).

Today, some physicists are thinking about what could have happened 'before' the Big Bang, thinking that implies the possibility of a universe extending into the infinite past.

How could such a universe be consistent with the Christian belief that God created the universe?

Well, an infinitely old universe can be consistent with its creation by God. A simple metaphor most easily illustrates. The metaphor is man the creator as a metaphor for God the Creator. After all, we were created in the image of God, so surely our creativity is in the image of God's creativity. What we can do with our creativity God can surely do.

So here it is. I will create a story, whose 'universe' has no beginning in the time dimension of that universe:

The Phyligians were a species of beings who lived in a universe that had no beginning in time, just as the phyligians themselves had always existed. They enjoyed philosophical discussion, but they yearned unknowingly for a religious meaning for their lives. They loved their children and each other, which provided them with sufficient solace that they were not miserable. The end.
​

There. Tom the creator just created a populated 'universe' that has no beginning in 'time'. Just so, God could create a universe that has no beginning in time. We like to say that God exists outside of time (just as I exist outside the time of the phyligian's universe).

What's the point? The point is, whether or not the universe had a beginning in time has no implication for our faith that God created the universe. No need to fret if the physicists change their minds about beginnings.

(I could write story in six days about a species living in a universe that was created 13 billion years ago.)

 

[Dark_Lite]

But the eternal Phyligians didn't exist until you made them up just now. So they have a beginning, it's just that their creation has populated a timeline infinitely in both ways.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

They have a beginning in our timeline, but not in their timeline. Their scientists, of course, can only study their timeline. They believe, on the basis of their very good science, that their universe has no beginning. When a mystic named Mot announces that it has been revealed that their universe was 'authored' in 30 seconds, he is scoffed at.

Dorothy L. Sayers wrote about man the author/creator as a metaphor for God the Creator, decades ago.

 

[Assyrian]

If the age of the cosmos is infinite, I do not see why God, outside the cosmos could not have created it. Time is dimension and I have no problems with God creating universe of infinite extent. This is basically Tom's point. The universe could have a beginning from God's pov, the moment he created it, but be created infinite in its own time line. The bigger problem for an infinitely old cosmos is the old one, we would never have got here from a point infinitely long ago.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

The bigger problem for an infinitely old cosmos is the old one, we would never have got here from a point infinitely long ago.

Interesting point. Better tell it to the physicists.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

However, note that there are no points infinitely long ago, just as, even though there are infinitely many natural numbers, every natural number is finite.

 

[Christos Anesti]

If time itself came into being with creation could one even talk about a "time" before creation in any literal sense?

 

[Tom Cohoe]

If time itself came into being with creation could one even talk about a "time" before creation in any literal sense?

Please don't shout.

Why don't you read the thread, eh? ... because there is an answer in it, right or wrong. If you find something wrong with the answer already given, let's hear it and we can go from there.

Sorry. The comment about shouting is just my dumb joke.

 

[Dark_Lite]

They have a beginning in our timeline, but not in their timeline. Their scientists, of course, can only study their timeline. They believe, on the basis of their very good science, that their universe has no beginning. When a mystic named Mot announces that it has been revealed that their universe was 'authored' in 30 seconds, he is scoffed at.

Dorothy L. Sayers wrote about man the author/creator as a metaphor for God the Creator, decades ago.

Mot the mystic was rejected, but he was somehow able to conceive of the possibility of the universe having a cause that does not directly relate to all the other causes in the eternal universe the Phyligians live in. Consider the following, from one of Mot's philosophical works:

It has been revealed to me that our eternal universe has a beginning! Fear not, though, for this beginning is not a beginning in any sense that it is a beginning of our causes which beget more causes. It is above all other causes. The beginning is not the start of a line that goes forever in one direction, but forever in two directions!

Some centuries later, a philosopher/scientist named Yop rediscovers this old work. He begins studying in depth. At first, he rejects it with the same incredulity his ancestors did. But as he begins to think, he realizes that it could be possible. He builds a fantastic machine and travels to our universe, the universe above his. He stands before you, his creator. Although only able to barely comprehend your infinite machinations, he recognnizes that your creation of the Phyligians was a conscious act. That act was the beginning of the Phyligian universe. However, that cause was not a cause in the traditional sense. It is a "supercause," above all others. It is a supervenient structure from which all causes are lesser echoes, but a structure that no cause directly descends from.

Armed with this information, he returns to his universe and presents this information to the academies of Phyligian science. In particular, he presents a draw that looks something like this:

... ---v---v-- SUPERVENIENT MOMENT OF CREATION --v---v --- ...
--> ... eternal chain of causes ... --> causeX1 --> causeX2 --> ...

Many reject his claims as unsubstantiated. A few, though, tenuously accept it and begin to perform further research...

 

[lucaspa]

The cosmology currently held by most physicists is that the universe began with a 'Big Bang' a finite amount of time in the past. It has not always been so. Einstein, for example, inserted a 'cosmological constant' into his theory of gravitation - the theory of relativity - so that the universe would be stable with no change (at the cosmological scale) over time.

The cosmological constant has to do with gravity. Gravity would cause the collapse of the universe, since it is only an attractive force. So Einstein needed a "fudge factor", something to counter gravity and be an expansion force, to keep the universe from collapsing. Once Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, the constant wasn't needed anymore and it was set = 0. Now observations have revived it. Not "considering". It is revived. Sometimes it goes under the name "dark energy".

How could such a universe be consistent with the Christian belief that God created the universe?

Some of them possibly can, some can't. For starters, the universe we see around us cannot be infinitely old. For one thing, if it were, then the night sky would be white instead of dark. Nor can the universe be an infinite series of expansions and collapses.

What is being considered are entities that existed prior to the Big Bang and which caused the Big Bang. One of these is Bojowald's "Big Bounce", where a previous collapses and that collapse does not go thru a singularity but then "bounces" out to a new universe -- ours. Now, Bojowald, as I read reviews of his work, is going to face the question "where did that other universe come from?" So it may just push the action of God back a bit.

But No Boundary eliminates creation all together. Hartle-Hawking's No Boundary has a self-contained finite but unbounded universe that just IS.

Ekpyrotic is based on String Theory and has a 5 D universe that has always existed. Within the 5 D universe are two 4 D 'branes -- equivalent to our universe. Every now and then one of the 'branes sheds a 'brane which "floats" thru the universe and collides with the other 4 D 'brane. The collision looks like a Big Bang, wipes out the existing 4 D universe and starts a new one. Now, if God is supposed to be eternal, why not have an eternal 5 D universe? No more God.

IMO, either one of these, if they could be shown to be true, would wipe out God. I understand what you are doing. You are trying to find a counter to Aristotle's possibility of an infinitely old universe without a creator God. This argument is often used by atheists. So you are trying to find a counter to a common atheist apologetics argument.

However, I don't think it works. In order to be God, a being has to have created the universe. Yes, the Hebrews could accept Yahweh as God because Yahweh created Israel. They didn't have to have a creator of the universe. I don't think that works anymore. Any being who is powerful, etc. but did not create the universe we would simply regard as another material being. A being like ourselves but possessing an advanced technology. We would not be able to worship such a being.

So here it is. I will create a story, whose 'universe' has no beginning in the time dimension of that universe:

The Phyligians were a species of beings who lived in a universe that had no beginning in time, just as the phyligians themselves had always existed. They enjoyed philosophical discussion, but they yearned unknowingly for a religious meaning for their lives. They loved their children and each other, which provided them with sufficient solace that they were not miserable. The end.
​

There. Tom the creator just created a populated 'universe' that has no beginning in 'time'. Just so, God could create a universe that has no beginning in time.

That isn't what you have shown. What you have shown is that, in the absence of God, people will invent a religious meaning for their lives! You've just made the atheist's argument for him.

 

[lucaspa]

If time itself came into being with creation could one even talk about a "time" before creation in any literal sense?

Not in a literal sense. But in a conceptual sense. That is, you have a concept of an absence of time prior to the start of the universe. Physicists do this all the time (pardon the pun). In Quantum Fluctuation, the universe -- including time -- is viewed as a quantum fluctuation in that state of no time, no space, no matter/energy. Back in the 1970s, there was an article in Science discussing that our universe arose as a "bubble" in Hibbert space.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Not in a literal sense. But in a conceptual sense. That is, you have a concept of an absence of time prior to the start of the universe. Physicists do this all the time (pardon the pun). In Quantum Fluctuation, the universe -- including time -- is viewed as a quantum fluctuation in that state of no time, no space, no matter/energy. Back in the 1970s, there was an article in Science discussing that our universe arose as a "bubble" in Hibbert space.

"Hibbert" space, eh? Never heard of it. Perhaps you meant "Hilbert" space, which is a type of vector space, possessing an inner product and such that all convergent sequences have limits in the space. It is a purely mathematical concept, although widely used in physics.

So you are saying that our universe arose as a "bubble" in mathematics?

 

[Tom Cohoe]

For starters, the universe we see around us cannot be infinitely old. For one thing, if it were, then the night sky would be white instead of dark.

Not necessarily. Our universe, if it expands hyperbolically, will never get white or even get warmer. It is cooling, for gosh sakes.

Nor can the universe be an infinite series of expansions and collapses.

So you say.

But No Boundary eliminates creation all together. Hartle-Hawking's No Boundary has a self-contained finite but unbounded universe that just IS.

Yes, well, if it couldn't have been created, then the model couldn't have been conceived. The conception of the model is an action of creation in the human mind. Obviously, the mathematical time coordinate in the model is not the time coordinate in which it was conceived.

IMO, either one of these, if they could be shown to be true, would wipe out God.

I disagree.

I understand what you are doing. You are trying to find a counter to Aristotle's possibility of an infinitely old universe without a creator God.

Aristotle was the furthest thing from my mind.

However, I don't think it works. In order to be God, a being has to have created the universe.

Yes, in meta-time, if necessary.

That isn't what you have shown. What you have shown is that, in the absence of God, people will invent a religious meaning for their lives! You've just made the atheist's argument for him.

?