the origin of the universe - a short exercise

[AdB]

The origin of the universe​

What is the origin of the universe? Does it have a beginning or has it existed eternally?
Can it be self-existent in the same way God is assumed to be self-existent?
Or if it did have a beginning, what caused it to come into existence?

And regardless if it has existed eternally or not, why does the universe even exist at all?

An eternal universe​

While there can never be a conclusive answer to this question, there are strong arguments against the possibility of an eternal universe. Below are three briefly described.

The mathematical argument​

If the universe never began to exist, then the number of events will be infinite, but a collection of infinite actual events will lead to a number of mathematical problems.

However, one of the basic principles of the universe is that every aspect of it seems to be ruled by mathematics. This indicates that infinity is a concept which can’t exists in the physical reality.

As mathematician David Hilbert has stated, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."

The expanding universe argument​

Starting in 1913, scientists like Vesto Slipher, Albert Einstein and Edwin Hubble discovered very compelling evidence that the universe was expanding.

In 1965, scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) which has generally been accepted to be the remnants of the first radiation escaping after the so called “Big Bang”.

In 1968 and 1970, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis and Roger Penrose published papers that elaborated on Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, demonstrating that both time and space must have had a finite beginning in a singularity that corresponded to the origins of matter and energy.

About 11 years of work by cosmologists Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin culminating in 2003 established that this conclusion holds for all theories of cosmic origin for which there is observational evidence.

If the universe has indeed expanded from a singularity or at least an extremely tiny start, then the universe, at least as it currently exists, has had a finite beginning.

The entropy argument​

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the totality of the universe, as an isolated system, will increase over time, the entropy of the total universe can never decrease.

Although this doesn’t demand a finite beginning because there isn’t really a maximum to the level of order, it does mean that eventually the universe will end to exist as we know it in the so called “heat death".

So with a finite end, the universe can’t be eternal in its nature.

Counter arguments​

One may argue against the mathematical argument that in a remote past the properties of the universe were completely different, allowing it to be eternal in its nature without violating the laws of mathematics, or possibly the laws of mathematics were different in that remote past.

But that would only mean that at the very moment the universe begot its current properties it would have had to become finite in its nature, effectively that moment would actually be the beginning of the universe. The presumptive eternal prior state would then be nothing more than the uncaused cause of the current universe.



One may also argue against the expanding universe argument that the proposed singularity was merely the result of a previous universe that collapsed into itself and that the current universe will also collapse into itself in a distant future, this is called the Oscillating Model.

But this concept would only lead to an infinite loop of subsequent universes, which would again be confronted by the mathematical argument.



Finally, one could argue against the entropy argument that the universe could be revived by energy being added to the universe from outside the universe which would decrease the entropy periodically.

But this would need a reality outside of the universe that would logically be the very cause of the universe, thereby rendering the universe not self-existent.

Also, when additional energy would have been added periodically there would have to be a starting point where the initial energy was added to the universe, effectively being the beginning of the universe.

Conclusion​

So although there is no conclusive proof of the universe not being eternal, there are very strong arguments that show it has to be finite.

That should be sufficient to discard the option of an external universe, as Alexander Vilenkin once stated: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince unreasonable men.”

The cause of the universe​

So with the option of an eternally existing universe ruled out, what can be stated about a beginning of the universe?

The uncaused cause​

Everything in the universe is caused by something, and that cause is always outside and separate from what was being caused. Therefore it follows that the universe itself also needs to have been caused by something else. And that whatever this is, it needs to be outside and separate from it, in other words it needs to be unlimited by the restrains of the physical universe itself.

This means the cause of the universe needs to be:

• Not limited by time, in other words it needs to be eternal.
• Not limited by three dimensional space, in other words it needs to be omnipresent.
• Not limited by matter, in other words it needs to be immaterial or spiritual.

One may argue that whatever is the direct cause of the universe was itself also caused by yet again something else, and that something yet again by something else, and so on. But this would also be confronted by the problems of infinity so ultimately there has to be a truly uncaused cause. So from the perspective of the physical universe it’s not relevant how its cause is exactly constructed because in essence it only maters that ultimately there has to be an uncaused cause, a truly self-existing entity that is the ultimate cause of the universe.

This uncaused cause would have to provide the essentials of the universe.

The basic components of the universe​

In essence everything that exists in the universe is an expression of energy in one way or the other, therefore the first essential thing that needs to be provided for the universe to start existing is the unimaginably large amount of energy that is present in the universe.

So the cause of the universe has to be able to provide and incorporate all this energy, and because energy is the result of action, the cause of the universe needs to be able to act independently and unprovoked, therefore it needs to be a sovereign entity.

The laws of physics​

The different forms in which the energy of the universe is being expressed is governed by the laws of physics. So if these laws of physics were established at that same moment when the energy was incorporated into the universe, then these laws would force this energy to be expressed in its different forms.

These laws of physics are basically the description of the boundaries to which everything in the universe is submitted to, so the cause of the universe has to have the authority to establish these boundaries, therefore again it needs to be a sovereign entity.

Mind​

There is one more aspect that exists in the universe which we know as the “mind". This encompasses everything from thought to emotions and intuition. One may argue that the mind is merely the result of neurological impulses in our brain, but this position leaves many phenomenon unaccounted for, it much more reasonable and logical that the brain is actually interacting with the mind with the mind being an immaterial phenomenon that is not bound by space nor time. It can also be stated that the mind isn’t just another expression of energy.

Because the mind is immaterial and not bound by space nor time, having these same trades it seems to be a direct expression of the very cause of the universe, therefore the cause of the universe needs to be an individual entity.

The identity of the uncaused cause​

So the cause of the universe needs to be a self-existing, eternal, sovereign and individual entity.

These are exactly the trades that are attributed to the God of the Bible… Were the authors of the Bible such brilliant minds that they all figured this out, or were they merely describing the reality of the true Creator of the universe?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the origin of the universe?

God spoke the universe into existence in 4004 BC, via a series of miracles, over a six day period, raising the level of mass/energy from zero to what it is now.

Since the level of mass/energy cannot be raised naturally, it stands to reason that the First Law of Thermodynamics didn't apply to God's series of miracles.

Earth was the first object in the universe that had mass.

In other words, God created the earth first, then built the universe up around it.

And science and nature had absolutely nothing to do with it, during that six day period.

Thus my caption: SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

 

[AdB]

God spoke the universe into existence in 4004 BC, via a series of miracles, over a six day period, raising the level of mass/energy from zero to what it is now.

Since the level of mass/energy cannot be raised naturally, it stands to reason that the First Law of Thermodynamics didn't apply to God's series of miracles.

Earth was the first object in the universe that had mass.

In other words, God created the earth first, then built the universe up around it.

And science and nature had absolutely nothing to do with it, during that six day period.

Thus my caption: SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

The origin of the universe - short exercise

The origin of the universe What is the origin of the universe? Does it have a beginning or has it existed eternally? Can it be self-existent in the same way God is assumed to be self-existent? Or if it did have a beginning, what caused it to come into existence? And regardless if it has existed...

www.christianforums.com

 

[partinobodycular]

This means the cause of the universe needs to be:

• Not limited by time, in other words it needs to be eternal.
• Not limited by three dimensional space, in other words it needs to be omnipresent.
• Not limited by matter, in other words it needs to be immaterial or spiritual.

You've just described a quantum field. Now all that you need to do is to demonstrate why that field has to be conscious, and voila you'll have yourself an argument for God. Until then you've simply demonstrated why we shouldn't expect theists to understand physics.

 

[AdB]

You've just described a quantum field. Now all that you need to do is to demonstrate why that field has to be conscious, and voila you'll have yourself an argument for God. Until then you've simply demonstrated why we shouldn't expect theists to understand physics.

The reason why the cause of the universe logically is expected to be conscious is clear.

The reason why we have something like quantum theory is because people try to find explanations, how marvelous and unlogical they may be, to deny the existence of a concious Creator

 

[partinobodycular]

The reason why the cause of the universe logically is expected to be conscious is clear, the reason why we have something like quantum theory is because people try to find explanations, how marvelous and unlogical they may be, to deny the existence of a concious Creator

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

The fact that people deny the existence of a conscious creator, is in your mind, clear evidence that there is a conscious creator.

Am I correct and would you care to elaborate?

 

[AdB]

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

The fact that people deny the existence of a conscious creator, is in your mind, clear evidence that there is a conscious creator.

Am I correct and would you care to elaborate?

No you misunderstood what I wrote.

People deny the existence of a conscious Creator, but He has put a strong desire in men's heart to understand things, so they will come up with an explanation that excludes God.

 

[partinobodycular]

No you misunderstood what I wrote.

People deny the existence of a conscious Creator, but He has put a strong desire in men's heart to understand things, so they will come up with an explanation that excludes God.

Ah, my bad. I thought that you were going to make an argument for why the 'uncaused cause' must be conscious. My mistake.

So I assume that you don't actually have an argument for why 'God' must be conscious? Therefore a quantum field would seem to fulfill your prerequisites for an 'uncaused cause' quite nicely.

• Not limited by time, in other words it needs to be eternal.
• Not limited by three dimensional space, in other words it needs to be omnipresent.
• Not limited by matter, in other words it needs to be immaterial or spiritual.

Thank you for demonstrating that reality has no need of a God.

 

[Chesterton]

Therefore a quantum field would seem to fulfill your prerequisites for an 'uncaused cause' quite nicely.

A field, according to Merriam Webster's, is a region or space in which a given effect (such as magnetism) exists;
a magnetic field;
a gravitational field

You have to have space before you can have a region of space. You also have to have quantum effects in operation before you can have a quantum field.

 

[sjastro]

You have presented the modern version of the Kalam cosmological argument.
The problem with this argument it uses an outdated version of the Big Bang model based on the following parameters.

(1) The Big Bang occurred at the cosmological time t = 0.
(2) Space-time was created along with the Big Bang.
(3) Inflation came after the Big Bang.

The modern version of the Big Bang known as the hot Big Bang is based on the following.

(1) Space-time existed before the hot Big Bang.
(2) Inflation occurred.
(3) The hot Big Bang resulted from inflation and occurred at a cosmological time t ≈ 10⁻³³ s after the start of inflation.

Since the argument revolves around cause, what caused inflation in the first place?
This brings up the question of the terms “vacuum” or "nothing" which has a different meaning amongst physicists compared to the non scientific definition of the terms.
There is no such thing as a vacuum being composed of nothing as a vacuum is space-time where energy is in its lowest or ground state.

Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.

Given recent threads involving Krauss about something being created from nothing here is the science perspective. The concept of nothing is very much tied in with the modern or non classical version of a vacuum which is a quantum field in the lowest energy level. You can’t divorce a field from...

www.christianforums.com

This is quantum field theory 101.

Inflation is a pocket of space-time where transitions from a false vacuum state to a true vacuum state occurred from which a hot big bang is created.

what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

I have a question about your post. We are speaking of the "beginning of our universe - specifically the "Big Bang Theory". My expertise ends at The Big Bang Theory being one of my favorite shows, so forgive me if my question seems silly. @PeterDona mentioned the law of thermodynamics (I...

www.christianforums.com

The problem of bringing God or a creator in general into cosmology is problematical as it is unfalsifiable.
The hot Big Bang model is pieced together from both observation and experiments which does not include the existence of a creator unless evidence of a creator having a hand in the process is found.

 

[AdB]

Ah, my bad. I thought that you were going to make an argument for why the 'uncaused cause' must be conscious. My mistake.

So I assume that you don't actually have an argument for why 'God' must be conscious? Therefore a quantum field would seem to fulfill your prerequisites for an 'uncaused cause' quite nicely.



Thank you for demonstrating that reality has no need of a God.

I gave the existence of mind as the argument.

I also have a question for you, if the universe was caused by a quantum field, then where did this quantum field come from.

 

[AdB]

You have presented the modern version of the Kalam cosmological argument.
The problem with this argument it uses an outdated version of the Big Bang model based on the following parameters.

(1) The Big Bang occurred at the cosmological time t = 0.
(2) Space-time was created along with the Big Bang.
(3) Inflation came after the Big Bang.

The modern version of the Big Bang known as the hot Big Bang is based on the following.

(1) Space-time existed before the hot Big Bang.
(2) Inflation occurred.
(3) The hot Big Bang resulted from inflation and occurred at a cosmological time t ≈ 10⁻³³ s after the start of inflation.

Since the argument revolves around cause, what caused inflation in the first place?
This brings up the question of the terms “vacuum” or "nothing" which has a different meaning amongst physicists compared to the non scientific definition of the terms.
There is no such thing as a vacuum being composed of nothing as a vacuum is space-time where energy is in its lowest or ground state.

Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.

Given recent threads involving Krauss about something being created from nothing here is the science perspective. The concept of nothing is very much tied in with the modern or non classical version of a vacuum which is a quantum field in the lowest energy level. You can’t divorce a field from...

www.christianforums.com

This is quantum field theory 101.

Inflation is a pocket of space-time where transitions from a false vacuum state to a true vacuum state occurred from which a hot big bang is created.

what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

I have a question about your post. We are speaking of the "beginning of our universe - specifically the "Big Bang Theory". My expertise ends at The Big Bang Theory being one of my favorite shows, so forgive me if my question seems silly. @PeterDona mentioned the law of thermodynamics (I...

www.christianforums.com

The problem of bringing God or a creator in general into cosmology is problematical as it is unfalsifiable.
The hot Big Bang model is pieced together from both observation and experiments which does not include the existence of a creator unless evidence of a creator having a hand in the process is found.

It's basically only theory, as I already stated, an attempt to find a way to explain the beginning of the universe without a Creator.

It still doesn't explain things like the mind

 

[Hans Blaster]

I gave the existence of mind as the argument.

Not an argument. Minds are things that (some) animals have.

I also have a question for you, if the universe was caused by a quantum field, then where did this quantum field come from.

How about "the field always existed"?

 

[AdB]

Not an argument. Minds are things that (some) animals have.

How about "the field always existed"?

So mind exists (even in animals) and needs to have an origin which eventually can only be an eternal self existing conscious being...

 

[partinobodycular]

A field, according to Merriam Webster's, is a region or space in which a given effect (such as magnetism) exists;
a magnetic field;
a gravitational field

You have to have space before you can have a region of space. You also have to have quantum effects in operation before you can have a quantum field.

What you describe is absolutely true, from the perspective of something within the field, but not from the perspective of the field itself. It's the same as the idea that God doesn't experience time or space, and yet He supposedly exists at every point within time and space. Both God and the field are everywhere, and every when, all at once. Pick any point in time and space... God is there, and so is the field. But they're not the product of time and space, they're the source of time and space.

So once again the characteristics of a quantum field are exactly the same as the characteristics that theists assign to God. So unless someone can come up with an argument as to why that field needs to be conscious, it's much simpler to just assume that like time, and space, and matter... consciousness is an emergent property of that 'uncaused cause', but not a property of the uncaused cause itself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So mind exists (even in animals) and needs to have an origin which eventually can only be an eternal self existing conscious being...

Brains get more complicated --> minds, both in evolutionary terms and in the growth of individuals. We all grew our own minds.

 

[Niels]

The problem of bringing God or a creator in general into cosmology is problematical as it is unfalsifiable.

The creator question is philosophical and pertains to why nature exists rather than how nature functions. Humans are a part of nature. We can learn how nature works by making observations and figuring things out over time. None of which detracts from the idea that it is created. A bit like understanding how vocal chords work doesn't change the fact that meaning is communicated when we engage in conversation.

The hot Big Bang model is pieced together from both observation and experiments which does not include the existence of a creator unless evidence of a creator having a hand in the process is found.

New theories and models change our understanding of how nature works, but the fact that nature exists suggests that it has a creator. That it has an intelligent origin. Regardless, God is a term that refers to the creator of nature.

What would "having a hand in the process" even look like? There are people who would deny that it is created as soon as we begin to understand how it works, but these are two different questions. How nature works vs. whether nature is created.

 

[partinobodycular]

I gave the existence of mind as the argument.

So how is the mind an argument for God? I really would like to know.

I also have a question for you, if the universe was caused by a quantum field, then where did this quantum field come from.

I think that Hans pretty much nailed it. But you'd also need to explain why my answer for where the quantum field came from, would need to be any different than your answer for where God came from?

 

[partinobodycular]

but the fact that nature exists suggests that it has a creator. That it has an intelligent origin.

I really wish that someone would present a rational argument for this claim.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's basically only theory, as I already stated, an attempt to find a way to explain the beginning of the universe without a Creator.

It still doesn't explain things like the mind

Since it hadn't come up yet. This board is for the discussion of science, not general apologetics (arguments for/against the existence of god). If you stick to the cosmology, it will be fine.