Critiquing: How Do We Know the Universe Isn’t Eternal?

October 9, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason Universe’s Beginning — Cause and Effect — Temporal Evidence — Philosophic Rationale — Theological Implications

---

Logical Coherence and Outline

1. Introduction to the Content

The content addresses two main questions:

1. How do we know the universe isn’t eternal?
2. Are there theological implications to evolution being true or false?

The responses provided by Greg Koukl and Amy Hall aim to substantiate the non-eternality of the universe and discuss the theological ramifications of evolution.

2. Scientific Arguments

Big Bang Cosmology and Redshift

The argument begins with scientific evidence for the universe having a beginning, citing Big Bang cosmology and the redshift of receding galaxies:

“Broadly you have Big Bang cosmology. You have the redshift of receding galaxies.”

These points suggest the universe is expanding from an initial point. However, while this supports a beginning, it does not irrefutably disprove an eternal universe, as alternate models in cosmology can be posited.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics is used to argue the universe’s temporality:

“The universe is hot, but it’s losing its energy. It’s cooling down over time.”

This argument draws a parallel between a cooling universe and a finite age, as an infinitely old universe would have reached a state of entropy. However, this assumes no external factors influence the universe’s thermodynamics, a point that could be contested.

Philosophical Argument Against Infinity

A philosophical rationale is presented to counter the notion of an eternal universe:

“If the universe was infinitely old, this particular moment in the universe would be the end of an infinite chain, which is obviously contradictory.”

This argument hinges on the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite sequence, which is logically sound but abstract and relies on the acceptance of specific philosophical premises about infinity.

3. Theological Implications of Evolution

Evolutionary Mechanisms

The discussion shifts to evolution and its implications, distinguishing between descent with modification and universal common descent:

“You might talk about descent with modification or universal common descent.”

The critique emphasizes that the existence of Adam and Eve and their theological significance poses challenges for evolutionary theory:

“If there was not an original man to whom we are all descendants, that has implications for the fact that we all have one head.”

Blind Watchmaker Thesis

The Blind Watchmaker Thesis, which asserts an undirected, naturalistic process, is highlighted as conflicting with theological views:

“It’s that whatever this is, it’s all a blind process and has no teleology. There’s no purpose to it.”

This point underscores a fundamental clash between naturalistic evolution and teleological beliefs, presenting significant theological ramifications.

Analysis of Logical Coherence

Inconsistencies and Logical Fallacies

Circular Reasoning

The content occasionally engages in circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion within the argument:

“If the universe had a beginning, then there must have been something that caused it to come into being.”

This argument presupposes that all beginnings must have a cause, which is the very point in contention.

Complex Question Fallacy

The response to the question of God’s creation exemplifies the complex question fallacy:

“Who created God? The presumption there is that God was created, and now you’re asking who did it?”

This fallacy diverts the discussion by presuming the premise under debate.

Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias

The content reflects confirmation bias, selectively presenting evidence that supports pre-existing beliefs about the universe’s origin and dismissing contrary evidence or alternate hypotheses:

“The scientific evidence is so decisive that against their will, all kinds of materialistic scientists had to accept… the universe had a beginning.”

This statement dismisses ongoing scientific debate and alternate cosmological models without due consideration.

Appeal to Authority

There is an appeal to authority in referencing prominent figures like Aristotle without critically engaging with the arguments themselves:

“An intellect no less than Aristotle, for goodness sake, the prime mover.”

Relying on Aristotle’s authority rather than the strength of the argument detracts from a rigorous logical examination.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Claim of Scientific Consensus

The assertion of an uncontested scientific consensus on the universe’s beginning is dubious:

“It’s virtually uncontested. And by the way, it was something that physicists in the 20th century… resisted vigorously.”

This overlooks ongoing discussions and research in cosmology that explore different models of the universe’s origin.

Testing Alleged Promises

To test alleged promises, one must outline clear, empirical methods. For example, claims about the universe’s beginning could be tested through continued astronomical observations and theoretical advancements in cosmology.

Mapping Degree of Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the evidence available. Strong claims require robust evidence, and where evidence is lacking or contested, a proportionate degree of skepticism should be maintained.

Bonus Section: Critique Based on Quotes

“It [matter] reaches the state of infinite energy density and infinite curvature, and we called that the big bang. And we’re pretty sure that this is not what actually happened; it probably means just that the equations break down. So, what actually happened? We don’t know.” – “That’s part of the problem. They [those who go beyond the evidence] want to know. They want to have a story.“
Sabine Hassenfelder — German astrophysicist

“We are not able to say what happened at the moment that we talk about as the Big Bang. What that moment is, is an extrapolation into the past using Einstein’s general theory of relativity. And the explanation tells us that if we go into the past, there’s a moment of time where the density of matter and energy is infinite, the curvature of space-time is infinite, and so on. … it means that’s the prediction of general relativity. You are making that prediction in a regime in which you know general relativity is not right. … The right thing to say is that there is, if you extrapolate from general relativity backward into the past, you reach a point where you don’t know what happens. That’s it! That’s all you can say! … At the moment, we don’t know. We do know there is no need for anything to have been. As far as current theory is concerned, the universe could simply have had a first moment. As we know, once again, the total charge of the universe is zero, the total energy of the universe is zero. You don’t need a source or anything external to make it happen.“
Sean Carroll — Mindscape Podcast, July 3, 2023 – Timestamp 1:13

Incomplete Understanding of the Big Bang

The quotes from Sabine Hassenfelder and Sean Carroll highlight the speculative nature of the initial conditions of the universe:

“We are not able to say what happened at the moment that we talk about as the Big Bang. What that moment is, is an extrapolation into the past using Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” (Sean Carroll)

This indicates that while general relativity provides a framework, it does not definitively describe the universe’s origin. The content under review overlooks this uncertainty, presenting the Big Bang as a conclusive starting point without acknowledging the limitations of current models.

Overextending Scientific Claims

The assertion that the universe’s beginning is an “established scientific fact” is challenged by Carroll’s clarification:

“As far as current theory is concerned, the universe could simply have had a first moment. As we know, once again, the total charge of the universe is zero, the total energy of the universe is zero. You don’t need a source or anything external to make it happen.” (Sean Carroll)

This quote suggests that the universe’s beginning could be a natural occurrence without an external cause, contradicting the claim that a beginning necessitates a beginner.

Desire for Narrative

Hassenfelder’s observation points to a psychological bias:

“They want to know. They want to have a story.”

This desire for a narrative can lead to overconfidence in explanations that provide a satisfying story, even if the evidence is incomplete or speculative. This bias may influence the content’s strong stance on the universe’s beginning and its implications.

---

This critique invites further discussion in the comments section to explore these arguments more deeply.