Here is a recent article about the timeline of the universe. It is a fascinating study about what the universe might have been like in its first milliseconds and beyond. However, they make some attempts at what happened before the Big Bang and promote what is know as the oscillating universe theory:
“The big bang is the ultimate extreme event - one where conditions are so intense that even our best theories of physics break down. Yet some theorists now believe they have found ways of pushing back even further, to the ultimate question: what came before the big bang? To do it, they have had to take on one of the greatest challenges in physics: the marriage of Einstein’s theory of space, time and gravity, general relativity, with quantum theory, which describes the subatomic world. Only then can they hope to describe conditions at the big bang, when all space and time was compressed into a volume far smaller than a proton.
Early attempts to unify the two theories are starting to reveal some intriguing hints. Recent calculations suggest that close to the big bang, the fabric of space and time was so contorted that it flipped gravity into reverse, producing a repulsive force. If correct, this would mean that the big bang wasn’t the start of the universe at all. Instead, it was merely a “big bounce”, the latest in an endless series stretching back into the infinite past.”
I am neither a scientist nor a philosopher. I have no problem with a Big Bang. However, I take notice when it appears that scientists give up physics for metaphysics but then want to still consider it natural. After reading through this article I grabbed a great book from one of my old profs: J.P. Moreland. I took a philosophy course with him my freshman year in college. He moved to California the following year. The book (and you should buy it) is, Scaling the Secular City.
In one section Moreland teaches about the Cosmological Argument. Within this chapter he gives nods to the Thomist Argument (from St. Thomas Aquina) and the Leibnizian Argument. He focuses on the Kalam Argument (KA). Note that all three are considered “cosmological arguments”. The KA states that (1) the universe had a beginning or it did not, (2) the beginning was caused or uncaused, and (3) the cause was personal or not personal. I will hit a few highlights from point one and make some comments.
First, the article above states that the universe had a Big Bang, but that would not be considered the beginning. They purport that the universe has gone through an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. Moreland goes through some mind-numbing mathematical models which include sets and subsets and states: “if one claims that there was no beginning to the universe, then this is equivalent to saying that there have been an actual infinite number of past events in the history of the universe.”
Later he notes the impossibility of traversing (crossing) and infinite. “If the past is actually infinite, then there is no beginning at all. It is precisely this lack of a beginning that causes most of the problems. If there were no beginning, then reaching the present would be like COUNTING TO ZERO FROM NEGATIVE INFINITY… this is like trying to jump out of a bottomless pit.”
Further the second law of thermodynamics speaks to this: “an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium” (wikipedia). Paul Davies is quote in Scaling the Secular City: “The universe will eventually die, wallowing, as it were, in its own entropy. This is known among physicists as the ’heat death’ of the universe… the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist.”
Moreland gave an example: “Suppose someone enters a room and discovers a cup of coffee which is still warm. He would be able to tell that it had not been there forever; in fact, given the right information, he could even calculate how long it had been cooling off. The second law states that the cup will cool off and the temperature of the room will move toward a state of uniform temperature distribution.” Consistency to this law would state that the universe still has energy, therefore, has been around only a certain amount of time. Further, the oscillating universe theory fails, for it would have run out of energy (about an eternity ago;)).
Where does this take us. Scientifically, some have stepped from physics to metaphysics to handle the dilemma. Some give the universe attributes that transcend the laws of science. Ironically, “the ’universe’ now possesses certain attributes that classical theists would ascribe to God, and the atheist has come perilously close to holding to the existence of God - or a Being very much like him - and simply calling him the ’universe.’” Hmmm…
__________________________
David Thew
Sojourn Pastor
Thewblog
twitter.com/davidthew
save to del.icio.us
share on Facebook
on Technorati
Here is an interesting
Here is an interesting webpage that compares a picture of a human brain cell to scientists rendering of the entire universe. Maybe the universe is just one cell in the body some four year old kid who is picking his boogers and eating them. Remember the last scene (marbles) of Men In Black?
;)
__________________________David Thew
Sojourn Pastor
Thewblog
twitter.com/davidthew
David, Interesting post. I
David,
Interesting post. I first read of the oscillating universe theory in Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe. If memory serves, it is a product of Super-String theory. Super-String theory is allegedly the most promising candidate for a unifying theory of Relativity and Quantum mechanics, which is the Holy Grail of modern physics. However, if I remember the context correctly, the evidence seems to imply that an oscillating universe could exist, not necessarily that it must exist. I too have a problem buying the oscillating universe theory because it only leaves more questions about the origin of each universe before it.
While I agree with the reasoning of the author you quoted, I think his example of the second law of thermodynamics is a little misguided. The laws of thermodynamics as we know them were themselves molded in the first few instants of the universe. In an oscillating universe theory you would have those laws being created, destroyed, and re-created during every oscillation. I don’t think you can apply a natural law to an argument when that argument assumes (or at at least leaves the possibility open for) the destruction of the very law you are applying. I agree with Moreland’s conclusion, but not that particular piece of supporting evidence.
I certainly cannot speak for
I certainly cannot speak for Moreland, but here is my take. I see the origin of this universe - whether one takes a single universe position or an oscillating view - as the beginning of all physical laws. That said, I believe the second law of thermodynamics precludes the retraction necessary for oscillation. I do not know of any empirical example that would nullify the 2nd law. That is one reason why I would lean towards a single universe with a beginning.
__________________________David Thew
Sojourn Pastor
Thewblog
twitter.com/davidthew
Interesting discussion. But
Interesting discussion. But I’m curious as to how the Genesis account leaves room for an oscillating view?
Genesis does not leave room
Genesis does not leave room for an oscillating view. It speaks about a “beginning” and that beginning was the starting point for time and creation.
__________________________David Thew
Sojourn Pastor
Thewblog
twitter.com/davidthew
Disclaimer: I don’t
Disclaimer: I don’t believe in the oscillating universe theory as I currently understand it.
However, I’d like to play devil’s advocate here. The beginning cited in Genesis was the beginning of time and space – the time and space of our universe. Can you conclude that there were no previous and there are no further time/space creations (oscillations) because they aren’t referenced in the Bible? Remember, each oscillation is a new time and space, independent of each other. We’re not talking about creations within this time and space, we’re talking about new universes after or before this one exists. Just to drive it home, don’t imagine one oscillation by looking at a tiny bubble that explodes into creation. In fact, you (but not necessarily God) must be inside that bubble. All of time and space exists inside that bubble. There is no outside.
How do we know there wasn’t a creation before this universe? It wouldn’t at all apply to our time and space, so there’d be no reason to tell us anything about it. How do we know that no creations will follow this universe? We may know that this universe will last forever from what the Bible tells us, but there’s no reason God couldn’t perform another independent creation that we might never know about. I don’t have any evidence for it, and I don’t have any reason to think it’s likely, but I also don’t have any reason to discount it.
In sum, why can’t the Genesis account be the account of the most recent oscillation?
All of this is pretty much irrelevant to Christian doctrine as I know it, but it’s interesting mental exercise.
David, I agree with your
David,
I agree with your last post. Which makes your previous statement all the more interesting…
You said,
”That said, I believe the second law of thermodynamics precludes the retraction necessary for oscillation. I do not know of any empirical example that would nullify the 2nd law. That is one reason why I would lean towards a single universe with a beginning.”
With that statement, you seem to be only “leaning” towards a single universie with a beginning. And you “lean” that way because (in addition to all your beliefs) of your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
The Genesis accounts makes it all a moot point. Are you saying you need additional data/proofs other than Scripture in order to embrace a single universie with a beginning?
Oscillating universes and
Oscillating universes and bouncing galaxies to kill off the dinosaurs.
“The periods of comet bombardment also coincide with mass extinctions… Our present position in the galaxy suggests we are now very close to another such period.”
__________________________Rich Sturmfels
Diesel Does It
@Max - the “I would lean
@Max - the “I would lean towards a single universe with a beginning” was written from the POV of if I was not a Christ-follower. I was stating what I would consider logical and congruent. My POV was not clear. Good push back. Thanks.
@Jeff - Genesis does not preclude a previous universe, but it does speak to a beginning. Therefore, it would preclude anything being eternal other than God Himself. Regarding the future, it is a great mental exercise. It is similar to the thoughts of whether there could be other sentient life forms in the universe. I doubt it, but I do not know. Either way, we are told that the Fall of man affected all of creation - note that sin does not exist only within the confines of earth’s atmosphere. The great news called the gospel tells us that God is going to finalize/consummate the redemption that began at the cross and resurrection. All of creation “groans” for this fix. God will ctrl-alt-del everything, separate the forgiven from the independent, pour His judgment upon satan, demons and the independent, and live intimately with the forgiven. Who knows if God will continue to create after that. However, with the biblical trajectory in mind, it does not look like He will create any more free moral agents that would rebel again.
__________________________David Thew
Sojourn Pastor
Thewblog
twitter.com/davidthew
Post new comment