Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » The universe most probably had a beginning

The universe most probably had a beginning


1 The universe most probably had a beginning on Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:02 pm


The universe most probably had a beginning


‘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.’
Arno Penzias in : Cosmos, Bios and Theos, Margenau and Varghese eds, La Salle, IL, Open Court, 1992, p. 83

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 black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

The Big Bang created all the matter and energy in the Universe.

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. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics: energy can be neither created or destroyed; it can only change form. So the cosmos did not emerge from non-being.
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 backwards in time.
4. However, if the holographic principle links the universe’s entropy and its horizon area then going back in time, all of 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. God exists.

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 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.


Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:


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 nothing.

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, than 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 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 with 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.


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 these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.




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.




Last edited by Admin on Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:12 am; edited 13 times in total

View user profile


Paul Davies, The cosmis blueprint, pace, 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."

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.

Its 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 ?

Erich Jantsch, whose earlier work The Self-Organizing Universe also expounds the view that nature has a sort of ‘free will’ and is thereby capable of generating novelty.

View user profile


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