Evolutionary Cosmology

[Vincent]

I don’t think God is necessary for creation in a multiple universe theory which scares me.

Even if this theory were true, we would still have to explain why these universes are “is -ing” (“existing” / existence / act of “to-be”).

A universe is not the same as its act of “is-ing” — I can come up with a particular universe without knowing whether there really *is *one. Introducing universe after universe after universe ad infinitum doesn’t change the fact that a universe is not the same as its act of “is-ing”.

In other words, “to be” is not “to be a universe”. If that were true, I would be a universe, too. But I’m not. In fact, if a universe is the same as its act of existing, then there shouldn’t be any diversity of universes. There shouldn’t be any diversity – from acorns to ants to astronauts – at all. There should just be one “thing”.

To reiterate, a universe is not its own act of “is-ing”. It doesn’t have to *be *. Multiple universes don’t change this one bit. It’s like adding multiple zeros-- you still get zero.

So where does a universe’s act of “is-ing” come from? Or, if there are multiple universes, what explains the act of “to be” of this total reality, right now?

The act of “to be” must come “outside” of a universe or universes, causing it to “be” like the way a light source makes the air to be transparent.

The source of the act of “to be” for universes, multiverses, acorns, ants and astronauts must be a reality that *is *the sheer act of “is-ing” itself.

This reality is Existence itself. God.

 

[ribozyme]

Again, I’d suggest you read up on this topic on your own. And keep us informed, why don’t you - but I’ve read many (atheist, in fact) scientists who regard MWI with contempt as essentially unfalsifiable. Here’s a link to one page of a professor who disagrees:

mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#XII

Note: I am not saying the above is correct. I’m merely pointing out that this subject is contentious, and there’s more going on than simple research. Various people are attached to one theory or the other for reasons that sometimes go beyond the science itself.

Learn from my mistakes: In studying quantum mechanics and general cosmology, you are going to come across many people who talk about untested hypotheses as if they were established facts. Just because they are professors, even scientists, does not mean that they are detached from pride and personal attachment when it comes to these subjects. Remember Einstein’s problem of accepting quantum mechanics? The man was brilliant, but he refused to accept the results of QM, largely because he did not like the results philosophically.

I’ll say this, MWI interpretation is about quantum mechanics, and I think it is difficult to see if there are alternate histories. But future-eternal inflation does not rely on the MWI interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

[wjp984]

also, just so people know, the professor is in no way saying that there is no god or and that students should not believe in one. He is far too smart for that. He just brushes it off with statements like, if that is what you want to believe feel free to do so or that although 90% of the scientists in his field don’t believe in God, the 10% still are smart people. I just really did not like the way he introduced this topic of evolutionary cosmology when he said for those of you that do not believe in God I am going to teach you how it is possible to maintain that opinion or something like that. When he showed that there was a 1 in a 1 with 229 zeroes after it chance of our existence by random chance, therefore most definitely requireing a creator, he had to basically next show how that is not true with this idea of evolutonary cosmology.

Basically, I just don’t see the point in God creating the universe in an evolutionary way. Actually, that is not even creating. That is just letting a process get it right after a a zillion of gazillion of trials after screwing up for near eternity. If the universe’s total energy is equal to zero and if the first two vitual particles could form, become real and inflate a bazillion universes ago, and then over bazillions of gazillions of years evolve into us, I don’t see the need for God in that. It seems self sufficient. At the best case scenario, it doesn’t seem to fit what our definition of God is since God wouldn’t screw it all up a bunch of times and need to evolve. This is why I don’t want this theory to ever become fact and it scares me. Basically, if there is a God, then God would get it right the first try. He would have to guess to try and figure out that 1 in more than 2 google chance over near eternity as the professor claims our univers did. Unless our God is limited in a few ways and we just weren’t ready for that knowledge so it was not revealed to us. Now I doubt that.

 

[Nullasalus]

I’ll say this, MWI interpretation is about quantum mechanics, and I think it is difficult to see if there are alternate histories. But future-eternal inflation does not rely on the MWI interpretation of quantum mechanics.

No, but as far as I understand it, future-eternal inflation still leaves the ‘start’ of everything unexplained - and even with that aside, I have yet to see how it devastates Christian belief. Maybe I’ve missed something, but all I’ve seen so far on this line is ‘Well, it explains away anthropic fine-tuning because universe after universe is created in ever-expanding fractal-like forms, and our universe is the inevitable result.’ But anthropic fine-tuning is not the leg which Christianity rises or falls on. It’s a recently discovered peculiarity that has entertained theists and irritated atheists. Where it may lead to is anyone’s guess, even if it stands.

I decided to read up on the theory more, and I found this interview with Linde on Salon:

slate.com/id/2100715/

Notice what goes on here. Linde talks about how the universe may have been created by an intelligent being - and then the article goes on to talk about how orthodox believers will absolutely have to run away from this theory, because ‘maybe it was a hacker’. This is the sort of problem I’m talking about - where did the science end in this article, and the theological speculation (and interpretation) begin? Naturally, questions like ‘So, what created the hacker?’ - a question you always get asked if you have even the slightest, deistic faith - are dismissed as “questions the orthodox will run and hide behind”.

Anyway - all this said, I just don’t see where the blow to Christianity comes. I can see the interpretations someone could pull out of it that would be used to attack Christianity, I can see it personally affecting some people. But I think it has far more to do with argument than it does scientific fact. The question of ‘What started this chain, if the inflation isn’t past-eternal?’ eventually gets asked. So too does the question, ‘Did this start need to have certain properties and constants?’ - and even, ‘Did these properties and constants require fine tuning?’

 

[ribozyme]

No, but as far as I understand it, future-eternal inflation still leaves the ‘start’ of everything unexplained - and even with that aside, I have yet to see how it devastates Christian belief. Maybe I’ve missed something, but all I’ve seen so far on this line is ‘Well, it explains away anthropic fine-tuning because universe after universe is created in ever-expanding fractal-like forms, and our universe is the inevitable result.’ But anthropic fine-tuning is not the leg which Christianity rises or falls on. It’s a recently discovered peculiarity that has entertained theists and irritated atheists. Where it may lead to is anyone’s guess, even if it stands.

I decided to read up on the theory more, and I found this interview with Linde on Salon:

slate.com/id/2100715/

Notice what goes on here. Linde talks about how the universe may have been created by an intelligent being - and then the article goes on to talk about how orthodox believers will absolutely have to run away from this theory, because ‘maybe it was a hacker’. This is the sort of problem I’m talking about - where did the science end in this article, and the theological speculation (and interpretation) begin? Naturally, questions like ‘So, what created the hacker?’ - a question you always get asked if you have even the slightest, deistic faith - are dismissed as “questions the orthodox will run and hide behind”.

Anyway - all this said, I just don’t see where the blow to Christianity comes. I can see the interpretations someone could pull out of it that would be used to attack Christianity, I can see it personally affecting some people. But I think it has far more to do with argument than it does scientific fact. The question of ‘What started this chain, if the inflation isn’t past-eternal?’ eventually gets asked. So too does the question, ‘Did this start need to have certain properties and constants?’ - and even, ‘Did these properties and constants require fine tuning?’

I never said that the future-eternal universe leads to atheism… One can always say that a deistic God started future-eternal inflation (Guth says it is a quantum creation event). I argued that the reproductive mechanism of inflation is inherently disteleological and argues against the notion of a God who who cares for humanity. God felt like he did not need to interfere in directly creating a universe for humanity.

 

[Nullasalus]

This is why I don’t want this theory to ever become fact and it scares me. Basically, if there is a God, then God would get it right the first try. He would have to guess to try and figure out that 1 in more than 2 google chance over near eternity as the professor claims our univers did. Unless our God is limited in a few ways and we just weren’t ready for that knowledge so it was not revealed to us. Now I doubt that.

I understand your worry, but I think you’re overreacting. But I think the above quoted part is the heart of your problem.

Let me ask you this: You talk about how God would ‘get it right the first time’ - but what are you insisting that God would get right? More than that, why are you assuming that God ‘got it wrong’ in the other universes - even under the caveat that this theory is true as postulated?

For me, it’s more of a shrug of the shoulders. I don’t believe in perfection - not in mankind, not in universes, and on a technical point, not in God. Far before anyone heard of chaotic inflation, God was described as infinite and eternal - and we were described as sons and daughters of God. The concept of an ever-expanding creation, and an infinity of possibilities, does not strike me as a hammer against God. It seems downright rational and reasonable in relation to Christianity - a reason for eternal life, and a project that approaches being fit for the God christians understand. There is no truly perfect state or perfect creation - if anything, there are perfect processes, and they’re perfect because they’re ever-ascending.

You talk about God not being necessary in evolutionary cosmology and cosmic inflation - my response is that that’s a deceptive way of looking at things. If I throw a dart to a bullseye, the dart ‘doesn’t need me’ from the moment it leaves my hand to the moment it hits the bullseye. All I did was initiate a process that, under the rules we operate by, led to a certain conclusion. You can likely see on your own why it’s a fallacy to argue that I wasn’t necessary in that dart hitting the bullseye. God is not a mere dart thrower.

 

[Nullasalus]

I never said that the future-eternal universe leads to atheism… One can always say that a deistic God started future-eternal inflation (Guth says it is a quantum creation event). I argued that the reproductive mechanism of inflation is inherently disteleological and argues against the notion of a God who who cares for humanity. God felt like he did not need to interfere in directly creating a universe for humanity.

Oh, I know you didn’t, sorry. I was talking about the general way these arguments tend to go, and mentioning how Slate dealt with the question in my view.

As far as ‘against the notion of a God who cares for humanity’ - I just don’t see it. What would constitute ‘caring for humanity’ with this God we’re talking about?

We not only exist, but we’ve been on the ascent in our scientific and moral (to a point - we’ve been behaving poorly lately) understanding. We’re even discovering that age-old christian doctrines - immortality, anyone? - are feasible in scientific theory, and may one day be so in practice. Heck, Linde there is talking about our capacity to create entirely new universes in the laboratory, even if that’s rampant speculation. This is the potential for humanity.

My question becomes: Should we look at the universe and say, ‘God may have started this process, but clearly He hasn’t cared for us in the meantime - the processes have just led to us having consciousness, incredible potential, and a march of advancement despite our manifold flaws’? Or should we say, ‘God may have started this process, and within this brilliant process His intention and care for us has been made clear’? I can see someone choosing the former or the latter - but I see no good argument against the latter.

 

[wjp984]

I understand your worry, but I think you’re overreacting. But I think the above quoted part is the heart of your problem.

Let me ask you this: You talk about how God would ‘get it right the first time’ - but what are you insisting that God would get right? More than that, why are you assuming that God ‘got it wrong’ in the other universes - even under the caveat that this theory is true as postulated?

For me, it’s more of a shrug of the shoulders. I don’t believe in perfection - not in mankind, not in universes, and on a technical point, not in God. Far before anyone heard of chaotic inflation, God was described as infinite and eternal - and we were described as sons and daughters of God. The concept of an ever-expanding creation, and an infinity of possibilities, does not strike me as a hammer against God. It seems downright rational and reasonable in relation to Christianity - a reason for eternal life, and a project that approaches being fit for the God christians understand. There is no truly perfect state or perfect creation - if anything, there are perfect processes, and they’re perfect because they’re ever-ascending.

You talk about God not being necessary in evolutionary cosmology and cosmic inflation - my response is that that’s a deceptive way of looking at things. If I throw a dart to a bullseye, the dart ‘doesn’t need me’ from the moment it leaves my hand to the moment it hits the bullseye. All I did was initiate a process that, under the rules we operate by, led to a certain conclusion. You can likely see on your own why it’s a fallacy to argue that I wasn’t necessary in that dart hitting the bullseye. God is not a mere dart thrower.

alright, I am not questioning that God exist. I am questioning whether he did anything spectacular in creating anything if this theory is true. Here is what this theory of evolutionary cosmology leads me to believe: There is only a need for one little virtual particle pair to spark and inflate. Then through trial and error, over a near eternal amount of time, it got the 1 with 229 zeroes chance of creating the right universe correct that would enable our existence. I think it limits God. In fact, if this theory is true it wouldn’t surpirse me if God is just the product of a bazillion more universes and creations that finally enabled the existence of God who could be infinitely knowledgable about the cosmos and then out of the goodness of his at that point omnipotent, omniscient,etc. being, he went back and gave us this religion including Jesus so that we can have eternal life. Perhaps in our level of comprention and evolution of our universe, we are incapable of understanding the secrets to eternal life and whatever the religon is there to show us. The religion would stil be true to me but I just would think God is limited to the laws of the cosmos if evolutionary cosmology is true. I think that what I am saying is nonsense but I really don’t see the necessity for God to be the one that created everything if this theory is true. It changes everything.

 

[Liberian]

WJP,

Actually, you don’t have to either learn or accept that our universe was just one of millions of bazillions. This is a speculation on the part of some cosmologists and is not accepted by other cosmologists at this point. Even if it were, unless you are an astronomer (as you appear to be from your post) you are not required to learn anything about it at all, much less accept it. Most of the human race gets along extremely well without knowing much about cosmology.

Where is God in all of this? Magnified in glory by millions of bazillions of times! It takes a much greater God to create multitudes of universes than it does to create just one, and it takes a greater God to create a universe fourteen billion years old and as many light-years in radius than it takes to create a universe a few thousand miles across and a few thousand years old. No matter what the cosmologists can come up with their speculations, there is no getting around the statement that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Science is silent on the subject of God creating one or many universes, and any scientist who presumes to speak to the subject is not speaking scientifically.

• Liberian

 

[wjp984]

WJP,

Actually, you don’t have to either learn or accept that our universe was just one of millions of bazillions. This is a speculation on the part of some cosmologists and is not accepted by other cosmologists at this point. Even if it were, unless you are an astronomer (as you appear to be from your post) you are not required to learn anything about it at all, much less accept it. Most of the human race gets along extremely well without knowing much about cosmology.

Where is God in all of this? Magnified in glory by millions of bazillions of times! It takes a much greater God to create multitudes of universes than it does to create just one, and it takes a greater God to create a universe fourteen billion years old and as many light-years in radius than it takes to create a universe a few thousand miles across and a few thousand years old. No matter what the cosmologists can come up with their speculations, there is no getting around the statement that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Science is silent on the subject of God creating one or many universes, and any scientist who presumes to speak to the subject is not speaking scientifically.

• Liberian

I am not an astronomer. I am just taking an upper division general education course at my university. Everyone is required to take 3 UDGE including one science. This course happens to be the most popular course at the school and looked interesting to me. I will let everyone know on Tuesday what kind of supposed evidence the professor will give us that there are multiple universes. I really don’t want to accept this as I still refer back to my previous post where I don’t think an omnipotent, omniscient creator is necessary for it.

 

[ribozyme]

WJP,

Where is God in all of this? Magnified in glory by millions of bazillions of times! It takes a much greater God to create multitudes of universes than it does to create just one, and it takes a greater God to create a universe fourteen billion years old and as many light-years in radius than it takes to create a universe a few thousand miles across and a few thousand years old. No matter what the cosmologists can come up with their speculations, there is no getting around the statement that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Science is silent on the subject of God creating one or many universes, and any scientist who presumes to speak to the subject is not speaking scientifically.

• Liberian

No, those other universes are pointless…

"Why would God create multiverses cannot that cannot be observed and appreciated by his creation? It seems superfluous for an anthropic universe. "

The multiverse is NOT mere speculation; it is suggested by most versions of cosmic inflation. Hawking briefly argued against “eternal inflation” here…

Alec:

You say that any inflation infers eternal inflation - well, Andrei Linde says that, but again there are respectable voices of dissent. Stephen Hawking for example points out that eternal inflation is not gauge invariant (ie the high energy regionds do not necessarily predominate over time); it is not consistent (as the basic equation describes an intgral of motion that cannot fluctuate because of energy conservation) and it is not covariant because it dimensionally splits as 3+1 and eternal inflation would occur in a deSitter space which cannot be supported beyond the Planck scale (astro-ph/0305562)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118488&page=7

Guess who gave said that, it wasn’t a Christian apologist.

But if future-eternal inflation is correct, this universe is necessary without God directly creating it.

 

[Nullasalus]

alright, I am not questioning that God exist. I am questioning whether he did anything spectacular in creating anything if this theory is true. Here is what this theory of evolutionary cosmology leads me to believe: There is only a need for one little virtual particle pair to spark and inflate. Then through trial and error, over a near eternal amount of time, it got the 1 with 229 zeroes chance of creating the right universe correct that would enable our existence. I think it limits God.

You’re getting beyond me here, sadly. You’re saying that if this is true - a big if, let’s keep in mind - then God didn’t do anything spectacular. You then go on to describe how an extraordinary number of ever-expanding, ever-replicating, ever-different universes would have, by this theory, come into being over vast periods of time from the presence (and I assume, creation) of a single virtual particle pair and some elegant rules. Why does that not sound spectacular to you? Why does this in particular strike you as not being something God would do? You say it limits God, but I’m not sure I see where the limit appears.

ribozyme:

The multiverse is NOT mere speculation; it is suggested by most versions of cosmic inflation. Hawking briefly argued against “eternal inflation” here…

It may not be ‘mere’ speculation, insofar as there are many prominent people proposing such things. But it’s far from proven - very far. That’s all.

Also, saying the other universes are pointless is… kind of a stretch. Especially when Linde himself is there talking about how you may be able to create a universe in a lab - and, I believe, he’s talked about migrating to these created universes somehow as a way to continue existing indefinitely. So it’s more complicated than pointless, even by his own measure.

 

[ribozyme]

It may not be ‘mere’ speculation, insofar as there are many prominent people proposing such things. But it’s far from proven - very far. That’s all.

Also, saying the other universes are pointless is… kind of a stretch. Especially when Linde himself is there talking about how you may be able to create a universe in a lab - and, I believe, he’s talked about migrating to these created universes somehow as a way to continue existing indefinitely. So it’s more complicated than pointless, even by his own measure.

I can tell you this; we are far from that day. Consider this entry from wikipedia:

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum)

“One scenario is that, rather than quantum tunneling, a particle accelerator, which produces very high energies in a very small area, could create sufficiently high energy density as to penetrate the barrier and stimulate the decay of the false vacuum to the lower energy vacuum. Hut and Rees,[9] however, have determined that because we had observed cosmic ray collisions at much higher energies than those produced in terrestrial particle accelerators, that these experiments will not, at least for the foreseeable future, pose a threat to our vacuum. Particle accelerations have reached energies of only approximately four thousand billion electron volts (4 ×10e3 GeV). Cosmic ray collisions have been observed at and beyond energies of 10e11 GeV, the so-called Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit. John Leslie has argued[10] that if present trends continue, particle accelerators will exceed the energy given off in cosmic ray collisions by the year 2150.”

Well, we are unable to generate high energies to surpass cosmic rays. It would take a lot more energy to generate a universe.

 

[Nullasalus]

I can tell you this; we are far from that day. Consider this entry from wikipedia:

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum)

Well, we are unable to generate high energies to surpass cosmic rays. It would take a lot more energy to generate a universe.

Sure we are - it may even be impossible. Who knows? Then again, the supposed (and various) ‘ultimate fates of the universe’ are incredibly far away as well. The necessity just isn’t near.

For all we know, eternal life and the general resurrection are going to be things that occur in the laboratory first, and then for all humans who do and have existed. And you know what? If that happened, all it would mean is that we’d have an eternity to argue about whether it was all thanks to God, or luck of a random draw, or something else. Or maybe not.

 

[wjp984]

You’re getting beyond me here, sadly. You’re saying that if this is true - a big if, let’s keep in mind - then God didn’t do anything spectacular. You then go on to describe how an extraordinary number of ever-expanding, ever-replicating, ever-different universes would have, by this theory, come into being over vast periods of time from the presence (and I assume, creation) of a single virtual particle pair and some elegant rules. Why does that not sound spectacular to you? Why does this in particular strike you as not being something God would do? You say it limits God, but I’m not sure I see where the limit appears.

I am saying that it doesn’t take much of anything to make a couple virtual partical pairs start a continuous cycle of trial and error. I will use your bullseye example. I throw a dart and every time it is boring and just goes towards the target. However, this one time I threw it in some wierd way and it does some really unique pattern of figure eights and some other weird stuff that looks really cool before it hits the target. Does that mean I am capable of doing all the stuff that the dart just did? Could I now go and recreate that exact pattern over again? I was the first cause was I not? That is all I am saying. I do not want to believe this theory and again I am scared it is true because I will have to reconsider my beliefs if it is and I have already posted how. I still would think we have our Christian God and that Jesus died for us so we could have eternal life. I just would now think God is somewhat limited by the laws of the universe or even separate entirely from its first cause. The thing I hate the most about this thread is I am arguing as if I am a non believer, which I am not. However, I really am having problems with this evolutionary cosmology theory.

 

[ribozyme]

I am saying that it doesn’t take much of anything to make a couple virtual partical pairs start a continuous cycle of trial and error. .

No, it is not virtual particle pairs that created the multiverse; the most plausible hypothesis is eternal inflation.

 

[wjp984]

well virtual particles are responsible for vaccum genesis which then went on to form universe after universe through the use of wormholes. By the way, I have faith that this theory is false since I already explained the problems that I think occurr with multiple universes.

 

[Nullasalus]

I am saying that it doesn’t take much of anything to make a couple virtual partical pairs start a continuous cycle of trial and error. I will use your bullseye example. I throw a dart and every time it is boring and just goes towards the target. However, this one time I threw it in some wierd way and it does some really unique pattern of figure eights and some other weird stuff that looks really cool before it hits the target. Does that mean I am capable of doing all the stuff that the dart just did? Could I now go and recreate that exact pattern over again? I was the first cause was I not? That is all I am saying. I do not want to believe this theory and again I am scared it is true because I will have to reconsider my beliefs if it is and I have already posted how. I still would think we have our Christian God and that Jesus died for us so we could have eternal life. I just would now think God is somewhat limited by the laws of the universe or even separate entirely from its first cause. The thing I hate the most about this thread is I am arguing as if I am a non believer, which I am not. However, I really am having problems with this evolutionary cosmology theory.

Oh, please don’t think of my responses as being aggressive. When I say I’m perplexed, I’m honestly perplexed. It just isn’t coming up with me.

What I’m saying is - to use your example of my example - when we’re dealing with cosmic inflation, unless it’s past eternal (which even Ribo here is skeptical about), the first cause not only had that lucky throw. This cause would have also set up every rule that would make any throw possible - gravity, mass, etc. You’re saying that if the theory is true, then making an endless universe is easy due to the rules involved. My response is that the rules would have had to have a creator as well.

As for God being limited, I read christian philosopher after philosopher who argue that God is at least rationally limited by what we know - can’t make 2+2=5, so to speak. But I think you’re on a whole different plane of limitation.

 

[Liberian]

Ribozyme,

While I would rather not cross swords with someone who discusses gauge invariance and de Sitter space, I will take issue with the statement that the other “non-anthropic” universes are pointless or superfluous. What makes you think that we are the only beings capable of observing things? Surely the angels in Heaven can see the plethora of universes, should such a plethora exist.

The idea of multiple universes may be “suggested by most versions of cosmic inflation,” but “most versions of cosmic inflation” do not at this point have the status of accepted scientific fact. Please remember that just over a century ago the steady-state cosmology and the luminiferous ether were in a much sturdier position scientifically than cosmic inflation is now.

• Liberian

 

[ribozyme]

Ribozyme,

While I would rather not cross swords with someone who discusses gauge invariance and de Sitter space, I will take issue with the statement that the other “non-anthropic” universes are pointless or superfluous. What makes you think that we are the only beings capable of observing things? Surely the angels in Heaven can see the plethora of universes, should such a plethora exist.

The idea of multiple universes may be “suggested by most versions of cosmic inflation,” but “most versions of cosmic inflation” do not at this point have the status of accepted scientific fact. Please remember that just over a century ago the steady-state cosmology and the luminiferous ether were in a much sturdier position scientifically than cosmic inflation is now.

• Liberian

No, I did not say those words, Alec did…

Cosmic inflation is strongly supported by the evidence… do you have any evidence that would suggest otherwise?

My previous argument relied on this (Bayesian notation):

P (inflation| WMAP results) = high

P (eternal inflation| inflation) = high

He challenged the second assumption though…

I should also add

P (existence of Christian God|eternal inflation) = low…

So how do you challenge the first two assumptions? It seems that the probability of eternal inflation is high to me (but Alec quoted Hawking to question it).

There is one model of inflation that does not lead to eternal inflation that I know of … it is called “hybrid inflation” (most versions of it do not led to eternal inflation, but if hybrid inflation is correct, it does not automatically rule out eternal inflation). It adds additional scalar fields to promote decay of the inflaton field, but I do not know if it is supported by the evidence. If you are a serious Catholic, you should hope that hybrid inflation will generate observational support.