How to refute the Oscillating Universe theory?

[CatholicHere_Hi]

This is a theory that tries to find a loophole out of the First Cause argument by stating that existence is an infinite and circular cycle of the universe coming into existence, dying, coming back into existence again, dying, repeat, repeat, repeat.

This tries to show how the universe can be made without a first, uncaused cause in a linear timeline.

Is there a good refutation for this?

 

[porthos11]

This is a theory that tries to find a loophole out of the First Cause argument by stating that existence is an infinite and circular cycle of the universe coming into existence, dying, coming back into existence again, dying, repeat, repeat, repeat.

This tries to show how the universe can be made without a first, uncaused cause in a linear timeline.

Is there a good refutation for this?

Why refute when it isn’t proven? According to the rules of debate, the one positing is the one who must prove.

Since time itself did not exist prior to the Big Bang, how then can anyone prove there’s even an oscillation?

What evidence does anyone have that there was a universe or continuum prior to the Big Bang, or that something else will come up after this one ends. After all, does it even make any sense to have a “before” before time began, or an “after” after time ends?

And by the way, this is not even a religious argument. Scientists hold on to this model that spacetime began with the Big Bang, so “before” the Big Bang doesn’t even make any sense.

 

[KJW5551]

I’m unfamiliar with this one. In their view has this “oscillating” universe always existed? If so, and if they believe it was uncaused, adherents would have to say the oscillating universe is simply a brute fact. It’s funny though, scientists don’t accept brute facts; they search for explanations. But when it comes to cosmological questions all bets are off and the wild, baseless theories start flying around.

 

[IWantGod]

This is a theory that tries to find a loophole out of the First Cause argument

No it does not. It’s a scientific theory and as such it’s an alternative to the big-bang theory or the idea of an absolute temporal beginning… Some atheists might use it as a possible solution to what they think is the first cause argument. But they are mistaken. The first cause argument succeeds regardless of an Oscillating Universe because it does not argue for a temporal first cause but rather it argues for the existence of a necessary existential cause that necessarily exists as the foundation of physical reality, if by the first cause you are talking about the metaphysical arguments put forth by Aquinas.

There is no need to refute the Oscillating Universe theory. One only needs to understand the metaphysics of Aquinas’’ argument.

 

[Wingz]

I don’t think anything can be infinite in reality. The problem with the oscillating universe theory is that it says that this universe came from a previous universe which came from another.

This cyclical pattern begs the question
Of how the cycle began
How was the first universe created?

There are also problems with believing that the collapse of the Universe would result in another universe.

1. There is not enough matter in the universe to cause the creation of another universe.
2. The law of thermodynamics state that entropy increases over time. Since the big bang had 0 entropy this would mean that after the universe collapses it would go back to 0 which goes against the law of thermodynamics.
3. There would not be enough energy for the process to start again.

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/crunch.htm

 

[rossum]

There are also problems with believing that the collapse of the Universe would result in another universe.

1. There is not enough matter in the universe to cause the creation of another universe.
2. The law of thermodynamics state that entropy increases over time. Since the big bang had 0 entropy this would mean that after the universe collapses it would go back to 0 which goes against the law of thermodynamics.
3. There would not be enough energy for the process to start again.

To take those points in order:

1. The total amount of energy in the universe is a lot less than you probably think:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

1. We know how the laws of thermodynamics work in the current universe. We do not know how they will work in a different universe, or what the effect of a transition from one universe to the next will have. The Big Crunch/Big Bang transition will involve a great deal of currently unknown physics.
2. This is a repeat of your point 1, since matter and energy are interconvertible: E = mc2.

As a general point I do not see a theological problem with an oscillating universe. An omnipotent God can create an oscillating universe if He wants to. The Hindus already have an oscillating universe in their theology: the breathing out and the breathing in of Brahma. Is the Christian God less powerful than the Hindu Brahma?

$0.02

rossum

 

[ericc]

There is no reason to invent a more complicated theory of universe creation. The bucket gets kicked down further down the lane , that is, what started the oscillating in the initial stage? What cause it to behave in that mode? What laws require it to behave in that fashion?

Universe making is not a resource-free process, energies in whatever form don’t just exist on their own and gets burned up/converted while the universe runs down. There are triggers to start a process and there are requirements/existence of certain conditions before such can happen. What happens if a subsequent Bang didn’t take off because the finely tuned parameters of a successful Big Bang were not met? The oscillating theory almost assume a successful universe making in every cycle. But we know the fine tuning probabilities are so impossible to arrive at at every cycle?! Multiplying impossible odds by impossible odds by impossible odds certainly is a fine way to waste time.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Honestly, even if the oscillating universe theory is correct, it doesn’t circumvent the issue. A loop cannot repeat until it has started. No matter how many oscillations we’ve been through, there had to a “first” run through to set the oscillation in motion. Despite what bad sci-fi writers may want you to believe, it is impossible for an event to be its own cause.

 

[Vonsalza]

Why refute when it isn’t proven? According to the rules of debate, the one positing is the one who must prove.

Bingo!!!

This is why “How does one refute” questions are so tragic. They concede the analyzed position as true by default when it shouldn’t be.

But to somewhat answer the question - I’ve never heard a convincing explanation of how the energy in the universe re-condenses. This would be necessary in order for the oscillation to go on perpetually.

Scientists hold on to this model that spacetime began with the Big Bang,

It’s just a super-popular axiom. There’s no reason “time” couldn’t exist before the BB. It just wouldn’t have been observable. And science has this little problem with stating that non-observable things exist.

 

[pnewton]

Honestly, even if the oscillating universe theory is correct, it doesn’t circumvent the issue. A loop cannot repeat until it has started. No matter how many oscillations we’ve been through, there had to a “first” run through to set the oscillation in motion. Despite what bad sci-fi writers may want you to believe, it is impossible for an event to be its own cause.

It is turtles all the way down.

 

[IWantGod]

Atheist: There is no ground

Seeker of truth: but how does the table stay up?

Atheist: It’s tables all the way down so there is no need for a ground

Seeker of truth: That doesn’t sound reasonable.

Atheist: Who said i was a reasonable person?

 

[Wingz]

The problem with the oscillating universe theory is that it does not have any evidence for proof.
It is just a theory created to avoid the idea that the universe had a beginning.

Either way, the question is not whether God is powerful enough to create an oscillating universe as He obviously is.

“All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” -John 1:3

“By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Hebrews 11:3

These two verses show that the universe had a beginning it was not cyclical. Nor did this universe come from another as this universe. Came from things that were not “visible.”
The problem isn’t that God is not powerful enough, but that it goes against the Bible- God’s word.

 

[rossum]

These two verses show that the universe had a beginning it was not cyclical. Nor did this universe come from another as this universe. Came from things that were not “visible.”

Gamma radiation is not “visible”. If all the energy in the universe was present as high energy photons, then it would not be “visible”. If the transition from one universe to the next was in some non-visible form – we cannot ‘see’ neutrinos or dark matter either – then the literal meaning of the verse would be preserved.

As to whether the universe had a beginning, that depends on the definition of “universe”. In philosophical discussions I prefer to define the universe as “all that exists”. Defined like that then the universe did not have a beginning because God exists and God did not have a beginning.

If we restrict ourselves to the material universe then cosmologists have more authority than an Iron-Age religious text that was not aware of a vast amount of modern astronomy. Even the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians knew more astronomy that the Bible writers included in their book. It is obvoious at the very least that the writers did not see the Bible as an astronomy textbook. It is an error to ignore that.

rossum