Why can't the universe be eternal?

[Colmeia]

Why must the universe have a beginning? Why can not we assign an infinite time to the past, admitting the eternity of the universe, that it has not been created but has always existed? Give me good arguments for such questioning, without entering a religious merit by saying something like “the universe must have a beginning because God created it.” I wish that this was the consequence of the argument, and not the cause itself, because it does not satisfy my question. We can not answer everything with faith because we have also the reason and we risk falling into the “God of the gaps”. I would like an answer strictly rational and within the philosophy.

 

[buffalo]

That is what science thought - a steady state universe - until they could no longer ignore the big bang and the receding universe. In addition the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy is increasing. Our own experience shows that unless maintained everything we built eventually crumbles.

 

[snarflemike]

I know there was a proof in 2003 (I think) that if the universe is on average expanding (which ours is and has been), then it must have had a beginning. And this goes for multiverses too.

Then there’s the question of entropy (if the universe were eternal, it would have “run down” an infinitely long time ago).

Then there’s the question of whether it is possible to have an actual infinity of events, which would be necessary if the universe were eternal. For example, why didn’t the solar system evolve, and life begin on earth, an infinitely long time ago? Why did it take an infinite amount of time before the solar system evolved, and life evolved on earth?

That’s a few of the issues that pop to mind.

Remember that even if the universe were eternal, we would still have to account for its existence. Either it exists by itself of necessity, or it exists due to some external agent.

 

[buffalo]

I know there was a proof in 2003 (I think) that if the universe is on average expanding (which ours is and has been), then it must have had a beginning. And this goes for multiverses too.

Then there’s the question of entropy (if the universe were eternal, it would have “run down” an infinitely long time ago).

Then there’s the question of whether it is possible to have an actual infinity of events, which would be necessary if the universe were eternal.

That’s a few of the issues that pop to mind.

Remember that even if the universe were eternal, we would still have to account for its existence. Either it exists by itself of necessity, or it exists due to some external agent.

The materialists fought the idea of a big bang with zeal, until they had to come to terms with it.

Once again the scientists climb to the top of the mountain and find the theologians have been camped out for a long time.

 

[snarflemike]

The materialists fought the idea of a big bang with zeal, until they had to come to terms with it.

And then they invented the multiverse to give themselves another chance.
Only problem is, that has the same infinities issues.

Once again the scientists climb to the top of the mountain and find the theologians have been camped out for a long time.

Yep, because the author told them how things worked out.

 

[meltzerboy]

Why must the universe have a beginning? Why can not we assign an infinite time to the past, admitting the eternity of the universe, that it has not been created but has always existed? Give me good arguments for such questioning, without entering a religious merit by saying something like “the universe must have a beginning because God created it.” I wish that this was the consequence of the argument, and not the cause itself, because it does not satisfy my question. We can not answer everything with faith because we have also the reason and we risk falling into the “God of the gaps”. I would like an answer strictly rational and within the philosophy.

I know the mathematicians and philosophers on board will correct me, but can something such as the universe extend infinitely in time and space in two directions, both in the past and the future? Likewise, can something be infinitely small and large at the same time? Unless, of course, we have come to revise our meaning of time and space, as I believe we have.

 

[buffalo]

And then they invented the multiverse to give themselves another chance.
Only problem is, that has the same infinities issues.

Yep, because the author told them how things worked out.

As Pope Benedict once said;

…"The more we know of the universe the more profoundly we are struck by a Reason whose ways we can only contemplate with astonishment. In pursuing them we can see anew that creating Intelligence to whom we owe our own reason. Albert Einstein once said that in the laws of nature “there is revealed such a superior Reason that everything significant which has arisen out of human thought and arrangement is, in comparison with it, the merest empty reflection.” In what is most vast, in the world of heavenly bodies, we see revealed a powerful reason that holds the universe together. And we are penetrating ever deeper into what is smallest, into the cell and into the primordial units of life; here, too, we discover a reason that astounds us, such that we must say with Saint Bonaventure: “Whoever does not see here is blind. Whoever does not hear here is deaf. And whoever does not begin to adore here and to praise the creating Intelligence is dumb.”

Jacques Monod, who rejects as unscientific every kind of faith in God and who thinks that the world originated out of an interplay of chance and necessity, tells in the very work in which he attempts summarily to portray and justify his view of the world that, after attending the lectures which afterward appeared in book form, François Mauriac is supposed to have said: **“What this professor wants to afflict on us is far more unbelievable than what we poor Christians were ever expected to believe.”

**

 

[ilikepizza1]

Why must the universe have a beginning? Why can not we assign an infinite time to the past, admitting the eternity of the universe, that it has not been created but has always existed? Give me good arguments for such questioning, without entering a religious merit by saying something like “the universe must have a beginning because God created it.” I wish that this was the consequence of the argument, and not the cause itself, because it does not satisfy my question. We can not answer everything with faith because we have also the reason and we risk falling into the “God of the gaps”. I would like an answer strictly rational and within the philosophy.

Whether the universe had a beginning or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of God’s existence. When we state that God is the first cause we are not indicating temporal priority but rather logical priority. Even if the universe was infinite in age it would still require an entity that sustains it in existence; a purely actual from which all other things derive their causal powers.

 

[ccmnxc]

Why must the universe have a beginning? Why can not we assign an infinite time to the past, admitting the eternity of the universe, that it has not been created but has always existed? Give me good arguments for such questioning, without entering a religious merit by saying something like “the universe must have a beginning because God created it.” I wish that this was the consequence of the argument, and not the cause itself, because it does not satisfy my question. We can not answer everything with faith because we have also the reason and we risk falling into the “God of the gaps”. I would like an answer strictly rational and within the philosophy.

A couple points I’d like to address. First off, the theorem snarflemike was referring to is known as the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem. Furthermore, the universe is a closed system, meaning it will become a casualty of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (in what is known as Heat Death, I believe). This means the energy in the universe, while not being destroyed, becomes unusable (kinda like trying to substitute water for gasoline to run an engine). If the universe (as we know it; it may not apply to the multiverse) were eternal we would have already used up all the useful energy. There is kind of a philosophical corollary to that. If the universe has existed forever, that means it would have exhausted all its potential possibilities, including its own destruction. If it destroys itself, it cannot “reform” since entities that do not exist have no causal power. Finally, the existence of actual infinites (in this case, temporal events) is seen to have problems and is contradictory. If you want an illustration of this, I would recommend looking into Hilbert’s Hotel, which outlines these contradictions.

 

[ccmnxc]

I know the mathematicians and philosophers on board will correct me, but can something such as the universe extend infinitely in time and space in two directions, both in the past and the future? Likewise, can something be infinitely small and large at the same time? Unless, of course, we have come to revise our meaning of time and space, as I believe we have.

In regards to your first question, I don’t think it can, simply because of the contradictions it would entail. Furthermore, the existence of a necessary, temporal object or entity really has little to no evidence to support it, so if someone brings it up as an objection to theism, they are taking on a burden of proof. With regards to your second question, it seems to violate the law of non-contradiction to me. Does this have something to do with Quantum Mechanics?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

A couple points I’d like to address. First off, the theorem snarflemike was referring to is known as the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem.

Yep. And it also applies to any multiverse the universe might have sprang out of. Vilenkin himself has said:

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning” (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

 

[snarflemike]

I think all of these arguments are quite persuasive, but I’m especially drawn to the argument against an actual infinity of temporal events. To present one form of that argument, an eternal universe would have existed for an infinite length of time before earth was formed. But in an infinite length of time, every possible event must have happened, and that includes the formation of the earth. That means that the earth should have formed an infinitely long time ago, but it didn’t. So there is no explanation why there was an infinity of time when the earth did not form, and then suddenly it did form.

 

[John2007]

Why must the universe have a beginning? Why can not we assign an infinite time to the past, admitting the eternity of the universe, that it has not been created but has always existed? Give me good arguments for such questioning, without entering a religious merit by saying something like “the universe must have a beginning because God created it.” I wish that this was the consequence of the argument, and not the cause itself, because it does not satisfy my question. We can not answer everything with faith because we have also the reason and we risk falling into the “God of the gaps”. I would like an answer strictly rational and within the philosophy.

I have made a hobby of cosmology over the last twenty years or so. My problem in discussing theories on the origin of the universe is the level of mathematics required to talk about the subject on more than a casual observer basis. I have one semester of calculus and some statistics under the belt. I can’t even begin to understand the mathematical models the physicists are using for their arguements.

Several of the observational astronomy findings over the last 50 years or so strongly support an expanding universe and are concordat with the “big bang” theory. That doesn’t mean that the next generation of cosmologists won’t come up with an alternate theories that explain the observational findings in better or very different ways. According to the big bang time would begin at the event because all previous history would be obliterated by the singularity. This doesn’t really answer the question about the philosophical beginning and end of time.

On a personal level, I don’t believe that there is or ever will be a a scientific theory that adequately explains the beginning of the material universe and time itself out of absolutely nothing, nowhere and no how.

John

 

[Ion]

Why must the universe have a beginning? Why can not we assign an infinite time to the past, admitting the eternity of the universe, that it has not been created but has always existed? Give me good arguments for such questioning, without entering a religious merit by saying something like “the universe must have a beginning because God created it.” I wish that this was the consequence of the argument, and not the cause itself, because it does not satisfy my question. We can not answer everything with faith because we have also the reason and we risk falling into the “God of the gaps”. I would like an answer strictly rational and within the philosophy.

It’ s impossible because it would have been finished long time ago…so long that you couldn’t even say when

 

[Love4All]

I have a theory about this, you can read about it here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=771891

 

[aspirant]

Why can not we assign an infinite time to the past, admitting the eternity of the universe, that it has not been created but has always existed?

St. Thomas Aquinas argued that reason alone could not demonstrate that the universe has a beginning in time (or, for that matter, that it did not) but that such a beginning is an article of faith. This is why his arguments for God’s existence do not depend on the universe having a beginning in time-- too many people believed the world did not have a beginning in time.

Whether the universe had a beginning or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of God’s existence. When we state that God is the first cause we are not indicating temporal priority but rather logical priority. Even if the universe was infinite in age it would still require an entity that sustains it in existence; a purely actual from which all other things derive their causal powers.

So argued St. Thomas.

 

[empther]

From OP

Why must the universe have a beginning? Why can not we assign an infinite time to the past, admitting the eternity of the universe, that it has not been created but has always existed?

It’s very simple.
Every event has a specific place on the timeline.
No event could have happened an infinite time ago.
Every event happened a finite time ago.

And that’s all there is to it.

 

[ejp123]

Why must the universe have a beginning? Why can not we assign an infinite time to the past, admitting the eternity of the universe, that it has not been created but has always existed? Give me good arguments for such questioning, without entering a religious merit by saying something like “the universe must have a beginning because God created it.” I wish that this was the consequence of the argument, and not the cause itself, because it does not satisfy my question. We can not answer everything with faith because we have also the reason and we risk falling into the “God of the gaps”. I would like an answer strictly rational and within the philosophy.

…scientist have aged the universe to be almost 14billion years old. Not because they want to pull an arbitrary number out of the sky, but because of what they discovered through science.

 

[Evan]

I was at a conference at one time when Fr Bob Spitzer (magisreasonfaith.org/) spoke to this question.

If the “Big Bang theory” is correct, the universe had a beginning and therefore an outsize agency (call it God) must have initiated the universe and time.

If the universe is eternal, then the entropy goes back for all time, but it could never have been infinite, it could only go back to the maximum available energy in the universe (zero entropy). So at some time the universe was unchanging (ie entropy was not increasing). BUT for our universe, when entropy continues to increase, that universe must have had a change introduced. This change MUST have been introduced by an outside agent (call it God).

Of course, he also spoke of multi-verse hypothesis, quantum fluctuations, etc, etc. But what I took away was

God either created the universe at some time. OR God initiated a universe that was not in a fixed state.

 

[buffalo]

…scientist have aged the universe to be almost 14billion years old. Not because they want to pull an arbitrary number out of the sky, but because of what they discovered through science.

You might want to check the underlying assumptions on the 14 B years.