More Religion, Spirituality & Folklore Questions

Can you prove the universe began?

Most monotheists today take the “beginning” of the universe as a fact. But of the three major cosmologies, the big bang theory, string theory, and loop quantum gravity, only one supports that possibility, and does so in a way inconsistent with a theistic approach. The most convincing cosmological evidence today points to the universe having always existed. So, why believe in a “creator of the universe” if the universe has always existed? In your answer please do not resort to the “law of causality” or “everything must have a cause” for 2 reasons: 1) if everything must have a cause then an un-caused cause (also called first cause or god) is impossible, and 2) there is no “law of cause and effect” (also called “determinism”) in science today. When Valentin F. Turchin wrote in The Phenomenon of Science that “quantum mechanics destroyed determinism” he was speaking of the thousands of quantum experiments that repeatedly show that, on the micro scale, “strictly determined outcomes are the exception to the rule. The quantum mechanics description of reality is a fundamentally probabilistic description and includes unequivocal predictions only as the extreme case.” Thank you.

Become an Expert →

Answer #1

Interesting discussion. tseirpeht wrote: “Well the universe is expanding which could lead us to assume that it had a beginning.” Yes, one of America’s most famous astronomers, Edwin Hubble, discovered many things about the universe in the 1920s, among them: the universe is much larger than just our own milky way galaxy (which was previously thought to be the extent of the universe), and that the further away stars are from us the faster they are traveling away from us, an effect made visible by the Doppler effect: the shifting of their light to the red end of the spectrum. He postulated that the universe was expanding rather than static as many scientists, notably Albert Einstein, believed. Hubble’s observations confirmed Georges Lemaître’s theory, the one we now call the “big bang” theory. Decades of observations and experimentation have upheld its basic notion, that the universe is expanding, away from a central point. What is not adequately clear from this theory is whether or not the universe actually began at the big bang singularity, or existed in some alternate form prior to that, or was the result of “chaotic inflation” that is to say, a universe bursting forth chaotically from the “quantum gravity foam.”

At any rate, in 1950 George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman predicted that a background temperature of 28 K would be found left over from the big bang. Sure enough, in 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson found the predicted amount of background microwave radiation. Over the decades since then scientists have studied and mapped this radiation with ever more sensitive equipment and have found that it conforms very precisely to the specific predictions made by predicted in 1950. This is the type and level of proof that we have that cosmic inflation progressed about 13.7 billion years ago from what is referred to as the big bang. This, however, does not answer my question: can you prove the universe began. It only shows that there was a big bang, not that that was the first moment in space/time. One difficulty to thinking the big bang was the first moment of the universe is the extremely well established fact that neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed (however, they can be changed into one another). If that is the case, all the mass and energy in the universe today must have always existed.

Answer #2

* I can no more “prove” this to you than you can tell me what I ate for lunch

Nobody’s going to quote passages from ancient texts to make an argument about what you had for lunch, and then tell you to pray about it and listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit so you can become confident those texts are correct. Obviously, that would be insane.

Can you explain why it should not be considered insane when you do it? If not, then do you think such arguments are going to find appeal to anyone who does not already believe as you do, or instead, will such arguments be seen as a reason to stay as far away as possible from your belief system?

Answer #3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” John 5:24

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. 3Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Genesis 1:1-5

I can no more “prove” this to you than you can tell me what I ate for lunch BUT, I can assure you that through prayer, meditation and study, and the voice of the Holy Spirit, one can come to that place of confidence; the universe began, it is and will be be.

Answer #4

Well the universe is expanding which could lead us to assume that it had a beginning. Based on your thoughts I suppose its possible to assume that maybe there was a part that was always there and it just grew. But you are debating the possibility of G-d, physics, math, everything was created by him.
Remember that the concept of G-d is timeless, he could create a mountain in a single moment that appears to have been there for billions of years. He created the first man and woman as an adult. He makes all of the worlds creatures and elements work in perfect harmony. The point is G-d is an all powerful being, he is the creator of everything, even the measurements we use. Saying that the universe as always existed means that it looks like it always existed. You are using a finite being, to prove a supposedly infinite thing (if it could be called that). Furthermore I would like to say that asking people to debate on your terms isn’t a convincing argument. Its like me telling Mike Tyson I could kick his butt, but he has to promise me not to punch back.

Answer #5

There are many other theorys out there, that is but one of them. There is also the fact that there is no sure way of telling how old the world actually is. Also the one that G-d is under a different time frame then we are.

Answer #6

How would that be deceptive? Everything has a reason, there is nothing deceptive about making somthing look old. Perhaps G-d likes antiques, or MAYBE the age is important for its structural integrety.