The origin of the universe - short exercise

Tinker Grey said:

Skimming it, it looks like a William Lane Craig argument.

Click to expand...

AdB said:

What sources are needed?
The mathematical part is just two simple facts, the expanding part has all the dates and names and the entropy part is the well known law and some follow up logic

Click to expand...

AdB said:

There is quite some work done to show the historical trustworthiness of the oldest manuscripts we have

Click to expand...

AdB said:

There is extensive material available on the internet regarding this

Click to expand...

AdB said:

You mean like going to the English "King James" language instead of the languages in which the Bible was originally recorded?

Click to expand...

AdB said:

These are caused by the ZPE

Click to expand...

AdB said:

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?

Click to expand...

CoreyD said:

Current points to the fact that the universe began to exist about 13 billion years ago.
Any other ideas will have to wait for evidence to give verification for them.

Click to expand...

AdB said:

What is so hard to understand about "the languages in which the Bible was originally recorded"?

Click to expand...

AdB said:

Indeed the point is there ultimately HAS to be an uncaused cause, the properties that this cause should possess are exactly what has been revealed in the Bible als God the Creator

Click to expand...

AdB said:

How do you think so?

Click to expand...