The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) has been made famous by William Lane Craig, who has defended this argument with great force, both with philosophical and scientific explanations, which objectors have found difficult to deny.
As a result, I will heavily rely on his argument found at Reasonable Faith’s website, as I consider this the tour de force in argumentation.
The argument can be simply summarised as follows:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This is a deductive argument, that is, if the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. So, the person who wishes to object, needs to show that one of the premises are false to avoid the conclusion.
We shall now look at the argumentation of each premise in turn to see if they are plausibly true.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause: This is self-evidently true, and is supported by both philosophical and scientific reasons. If something could come into being without any casual conditions, it would be something coming from nothing. I will give three reasons in support of the premise.
It is also Important to add that, by cause, I mean efficient causes, the efficient cause of myself was my parents, the efficient cause of the chair, is the carpenter etc.
Something cannot come from nothing, to claim that something can from nothing is impossible as William Lane Craig quips “
A common objection to this is the claim that in quantum physics, subatomic particles or virtual particles come into existence from nothing. Or certain theories of the origin of the universe are sometime described in popular magazines as getting something from nothing. Very often the universe will be described as the proverbial “free lunch.” Milton Friedman, the economist, says, “There ain’t no free lunch.” Sometimes people will say that the universe is the exception to the proverb “There ain’t no free lunch” because the universe came into being from nothing. E.G., Hawking; Krauss. And, therefore, this is meant as a defeater to the claim in premise 1.
This however, is mistaken as William Lane Craig states “I think that this response represents a deliberate abuse of science, to be frank. The theories in question have to do with particles’ originating as fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum. And you need to understand that in physics, the vacuum is not what the layman means by a vacuum, namely, nothing. In physics, the vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy, a sea of violent activity, having a physical structure and governed by physical laws. Similarly, in these models of the universe, the universe comes into being out of the vacuum; it doesn’t come into being from nothing. The vacuum is definitely something, which is this sea of fluctuating energy. And to tell lay people that in this case something comes from nothing is simply a distortion of these theories and, as I say, an abuse of science by those who appeal to them.”(1)
As Philosopher of Cosmology David Z. Albert states
“ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. . . . And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. . . the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.
The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory . . . have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.
There is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, . . . and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states.
Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. . . . But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states . . . are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff.. . . The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings . . . amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.
Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.” (2)
This is a case in point of the importance of language, also the importance of the press and scientific community inaccurately portraying complex scientific research to the laymen. Poor, sloppy analogies have caused generations of people thinking wholly inaccurate views on scientific research.
As William Lane Craig explains “.” He goes on “”(1) This point, deserves to be underscored, to deny the premise and the claim that something cannot come from nothing, you are working on assumptions that are less obvious than our everyday experience.
The second point is, if something can come into being from nothing, if that is possible, then it becomes inexplicable, moreover, the person who claims so, needs to explain why anything and everything doesn’t come into being uncaused? Just think about it for a minute, why is it only universes that come into existence uncaused, why not pianos, or humpback whales and cheese not pop into existence uncaused? But no one is worried that when you get back home from work a blue whale will be in your living room, with your patio door caved in and the tail hanging out into your back garden! William Lane Craig states “.”(1) What Dr.Craig shows here so well, is the utter incoherence of this position, nothingness, can by definition have no properties, so what is constraining it? For example, the properties of a circle, is that it has 360 degrees, it by definition excludes it being possible for a circle to be a square or a triangle, or anything other than a circle! In other words, it is logically impossible for a circle to be a square or a square circle or anything else other than a circle.
A typical atheist response to this argument goes something like this.“Premise 1 is true of everything IN the universe, but is not true OF the universe.” But this is just a misunderstanding, it isn’t like the law of gravity which only applies in the universe. Rather it is a metaphysical principle which applies to all being. Therefore, it governs all of reality, all of being. To claim the universe is the exception to the rule, is frankly ludicrous! You cannot dismiss the causal principle like a cab once you have arrived at your desired destination. Again, to deny the premise and the claim that something cannot come from nothing, you are working on assumptions that are less obvious than our everyday experience. Again, there is a misunderstanding, the word ‘universe’ by definition is everything that exists, all of space time and reality. It is a blatant misunderstanding of the word to try attribute or smuggle in a wider physical reality outside our universe! There cannot be more than all of space time reality, to claim otherwise is a misunderstanding.
The atheist might then retort, “All right, if everything has a cause, then what is God’s cause?” like they have made some philosophical knockout blow. Premise 1 doesn’t say everything has a cause; it is whatever beings to exist has a cause. But the claim theists make is that God is transcendent, that is, external to the universe, so never began to exist. It is important to notice, this isn’t special pleading for God. This is what the atheist has always said about the universe! The universe is eternal and uncaused and therefore there is no cause of the universe. So, it isn’t special pleading. But the problem is, we now have strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past, but had a definite beginning.
The third point is, scientific and common day experience confirms the premise.The whole of the scientific enterprise is looking for causal relations to why things happen. Moreover, everyday experience shows this to be true, the bottle of milk you pour into your bowl of cereal didn’t pop into existence uncaused, but was made. Moreover, cause and effect is always verify, never falsified and shouldn’t be dismissed for premises less obvious.
Now some people find philosophical arguments dubious or difficult to follow; they prefer empirical evidence. However, I want to note in passing that the sort of philosophical problems with the infinity of the past which we have discussed are now being recognized in scientific papers by leading cosmologists and philosophers of science. (3) For example, Ellis, Kirchner, and Stoeger ask, “Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that, on the basis of well-known philosophical arguments, the answer is No.”(4) Similarly, noting that an actual infinite is not constructible and therefore not actualisable, they assert, “This is precisely why a realised past infinity in time is not considered possible from this standpoint—since it involves an infinite set of completed events or moments.” (4) These misgivings represent endorsements of both of the kalam arguments which I defended above. Ellis and his colleagues conclude, “The arguments against an infinite past time are strong—it’s simply not constructible in terms of events or instants of time, besides being conceptually indefinite.”(4)
The universe began to exist:
If we agree that whatever begins to exist has a cause, what evidence is there to support the crucial second step in the argument, that the universe began to exist? We’ll examine both deductive, philosophical arguments and inductive, scientific arguments in support of premise (2).
The Expansion of the Universe I will not go into great detail of the scientific evidence for the most part, as it isn’t controversial and should be fairly well understood, or easily found by someone who wants to look into it more. The Scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe has been developing since the 1917, starting predominantly with Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Einstein found that GR would not permit an eternal, static model of the universe, unless he fudged the equation in order to offset the gravitational effect of matter. Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaître in the 1920’s independently predicted an expanding universe. Furthermore, the Friedman-Lemaître model implies a finite time or history to the universe. The Friedman-Lemaître model is now more commonly known as the ‘Big Bang’ model or the ‘Standard Model’. Edwin Hubble In 1929 showed the red shifting of light from distant galaxies showing or implying that the universe is expanding, further proof of the work done by Einstein, Friedman and Lemaître.
The Standard Model
According to the Friedman-Lemaître model, as time proceeds, the distances separating the galaxies become greater. It’s important to appreciate that as a GR-based theory, the model does not describe the expansion of the material content of the universe into a pre-existing, empty space, but rather the expansion of space itself. Just as if you take an uninflated balloon and draw dots on it, as you inflate the balloon, the dots get further away from each other. As the universe expands, it becomes less and less dense. This has the astonishing implication that as one reverses the expansion and extrapolates back in time, the universe becomes progressively denser until one arrives at a state of infinite density at some point in the finite past. This state represents a singularity at which space-time curvature, along with temperature, pressure, and density, becomes infinite. It therefore constitutes an edge or boundary to space-time itself.
If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason, most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.
The standard Big Bang model, describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover, —and this deserves underscoring—the origin it posits is an absolute origin out of nothing. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler emphasize, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.” (5)
On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.
Now such a conclusion is profoundly disturbing for anyone who ponders it. For the question cannot be suppressed: Why did the universe come into being? Sir Arthur Eddington, contemplating the beginning of the universe, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that “I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it —except myself.”(6) He finally felt forced to conclude, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”(7) The problem of the origin of the universe, in the words of one astrophysical team, thus “involves a certain metaphysical aspect which may be either appealing or revolting.”(8)
Many theorems have been posseted to try and get round the beginning of the universe; we will address some of the more popular theorems later.
The next important piece of evidence for the beginning of the universe is the BGV (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin) theorem, (9) the evidence shows that any universe is on average expanding, its history cannot be indefinitely continued into the past. Vilenkin writes “The BGV Theorem is sweeping in its generality. It makes no assumptions about gravity or matter. Gravity may be attractive or repulsive, light rays may converge or diverge, and even general relativity may decline into desuetude: the theorem would still hold.” He continues “A number of physicists have constructed models of an eternal universe in which the BGV theorem is no longer pertinent. George Ellis and his collaborators have suggested that a finite, closed universe, in which space closes upon itself like the surface of a sphere, could have existed forever in a static state and then burst into inflationary expansion. Averaged over infinite time, the expansion rate would then be zero, and the BGV theorem would not apply. Ellis constructed a classical model of a stable closed universe and provided a mechanism triggering the onset of expansion. Ellis made no claim that his model was realistic; it was intended as a proof of concept, showing that an eternal universe is possible. Not so. A static universe is unstable with respect to quantum collapse. It may be stable by the laws of classical physics, but in quantum physics a static universe might make a sudden transition to a state of vanishing size and infinite density. No matter how small the probability of collapse, the universe could not have existed for an infinite amount of time before the onset of inflation.
There is another way that the universe might be eternal in the past. It could have cycled through an infinite succession of expansions and contractions. This notion was briefly popular in the 1930s, but was then abandoned because of its apparent conflict with the second law of thermodynamics. The second law requires that entropy should increase in each cycle of cosmic evolution. If the universe had already completed an infinite number of cycles, it would have reached a state of thermal equilibrium, and so a state of maximum entropy. All the energy of ordered motion would have turned into heat, a uniform temperature prevailing throughout.
We do not find ourselves in such a state.
The idea of a cyclic universe was recently revived by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok. They suggested that in each cycle expansion is greater than contraction, so that the volume of the universe is increased. The entropy of the universe we can now observe could be the same as the entropy of some similar region in an earlier cycle; nonetheless, the total entropy of the universe would have increased because the volume of the universe is now greater than it was before. As time goes on, both the entropy and the total volume grow without bounds, and the state of maximum entropy is never reached. There is no maximum entropy.
The problem with this scenario is that, on average, the volume of the universe still grows, and thus the BGV theorem can be applied. This leads immediately to the conclusion that a cyclic universe cannot be past-eternal.” (Citations removed) (9)
Vilenkin is blunt about the implications: “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.” (10)iIn Cambridge at a conference celebrating the 70th birthday of Stephen Hawking, Vilenkin delivered a paper which surveys current cosmology with respect to the question “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” He argued that “none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.” (11) He concluded, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” (12) Now that’s a remarkable statement. Vilenkin does not say merely that the evidence for a beginning outweighs the evidence against a beginning. Rather he says that all the evidence we have says that the universe has a beginning. Thus, the person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.
As Vilenkin has shown in the BGV theorem that other models do not avoid a beginning of the universe and cannot be eternal in the past, for a number of reasons. However, a number of other reasons why a universe cannot be eternal. The law of thermodynamics shows that entropy is slowly increasing, and that the usable energy is slowly running out, and is good evidence why the universe had a beginning. This law is all pervasive and encompassing in our daily lives, the cup of hot tea will slowly lose its heat into the environment, this is ultimately why a self-perpetuating machine isn’t possible. If the universe had been eternal in the past, the usable energy would have run out by now and ultimate heat death would be reached. Moreover, the low entropy rate we have, is clear that the universe had a definite beginning, set at an initial condition and now slowly running down of usable energy. (13)
The Universe has a cause.
Properties of the First Cause
From the two premises it follows logically that the universe has a cause. This is a remarkable realisation, and from this, it implies a transcendent cause. We have looked at philosophical and scientific evidence for this conclusion. However, to get to what could be a cause of the universe, conceptual analysis is needed, as scientific evidence isn’t available for transcendent reality.
Let us recap on the evidence;
o Something cannot come from nothing.
o Infinite regression cannot be actually substantiated in reality.
o Everyday experience shows that things have efficient causes.
o The expansion of the universe has been predicted by a number of ways, through Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, Friedman and Lemaître’s Big Bang model and Edwin Hubble's redshift.
o The BGV theorem shows that any universe that is expanding on average in its history cannot be past eternal.
o Laws of thermodynamics shows that usable energy is slowly being used and cannot go on indefinitely.
o Other models that try and avoid a beginning do not, for different reasons, but all ultimately have a beginning by pushing the problem one step back.
o Space and time are created at the singularity from nothing.
Conceptual analysis of what it is to be a cause of the universe:
The cause must be:
Spaceless – as we have seen sans the universe there is no matter or space prior the universe.
Timeless – as we have seen sans the universe there is no time prior the universe.
Immaterial – or transcendent, this is what it is meant to be outside the universe.
Uncaused – as the cause has no material cause and spaceless, it by definition cannot be caused by any precedent event, so is also beginning-less and changeless.
Immensely Powerful – to be a cause of the universe, the cause must be immensely or at least sufficiently powerful to be able to create the universe.
Personal – to be an efficient cause of the universe that is timeless and spaceless, the cause must have freedom of the will to choose to create at a certain point, else we run into a contradiction, if you have a truly permanent cause, then the effect will have to be permanent too. As the universe had a definite beginning around 14 billion years, the cause must be personal to be able to break the timeless state sans the universe.
Some explanation might be required, by sans I mean in ‘the absence of’, sans is a tenses-less verb. So, sans the universe, I mean in the absence of the universe, there was no space or time.
We can then add subsequent premises;
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginning-less, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and immensely powerful.
From (3) and (4), it follows that
5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and immensely powerful.
This, is remarkably close to what we would call God.
Some have just granted the argument for argument’s sake, and just say, okay, all it proves is the universe has a cause, but it doesn’t get you God, and not even your specific God. E.g Matt Dillahaunty & Richard Dawkins. My response has been, so what! that’s all it is trying to prove, but given the evidence, the universe has to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal and immensely Powerful cause, this is remarkably close to a Judeo-Christian understanding of God.
Some try to argue, okay everything needs a cause so what caused God? E.g Richard Dawkins. Notice, the sudden switch of terms, the premise is whatever beings to exist has a cause! Universally, Christians have asserted God is transcendent so the objection is a strawman, all it proves is that the cause is Immanent like Thor or Zeus and not transcendent like the God of the bible. Furthermore, the objector hasn’t really understood the force of the argument, philosophically the need for a prime mover or unmoved, mover is inescapable, the evidence for the impossibility of forming an actual infinite. Additionally, the laws of thermodynamics, and recent cosmology shows the universe began to exist a finite time ago and sans the universe, it was timeless and spaceless. So, any cause must be: Immaterial, uncaused, spaceless, timeless, personal and immensely Powerful.
So, the cause cannot result in a infinite regression hence the need of a necessarily existing prime or first cause. The cause cannot be in the universe as the cause of the universe cannot be in the universe without absurdity e.g you didn’t create yourself! So, the cause must be spaceless and timeless as time and space was created at the Big Bang event! In other words, the cause is immaterial and uncaused. The cause must be personal as to have a permanent cause from a finite event, the cause must had freedom of the will to choose to create, else you have to explain why did the cause only made the universe 14 billion years ago, why not 20 billion years ago, or yesterday or why hasn’t heat death occurred? And the cause must be immensely Powerful to create the universe and all the laws that govern it.
Some have called the argument question begging; they claim the conclusion is baked into the argument. For the truth of the first premise presupposes the conclusion. Therefore, the argument is an example of reasoning in a circle. (For an argument to be question begging the proponent of the argument would have already arrived or assumed the answer at the conclusion.) The person who raises such an objection, is simply explaining how a deductive argument works! A set of propositions are set out in the form of premises, following a conclusion. If the premises follow logically, the conclusion follows necessarily.
Moreover, it is important to note, arguments do not beg the question, people do, by the reasons one holds to get to certain conclusions. It is important to note that I have also given reasons for each premise and think I am justified in the conclusion. So, I cannot be accused of presupposing my conclusion without first showing how either the premises do not follow, or show how my justification for such a conclusion do not support such a conclusion.
Alex O’Connor aka CosmicSkeptic spoke with William Lane Craig regarding the Kalam Cosmological Argument (14). As a side note, Alex agrees or grants, if we accept the premises, it does in fact lead to a personal cause, best described as God. However, Alex does give some objections to the first premise that are worthy of note. I urge you to watch the video, as the discussion is surprisingly rich and deep in content.
Alex if you think I misrepresent your position, please let me know.
1.Based on our common experience of things coming into existence – Alex gave some push back on the idea of things coming into existence, that is, the wood that comprises the chair didn’t truly come into existence as;
1. The term chair or whatever, are a subjective, arbitrary labelling on our part.
2. The matter they comprise ultimately from fundamental particles, and so always existed at the Big Bang event, and are just rearrangements of these fundamental particles in a chair-wise configuration. So, the only true example of something coming into being is the universe itself.
For Alex, it seems, there are no such things as chairs, or skyscrapers, as they are just rearrangements of pre-existing matter. That is, the chair, is only labelled a chair at some seemingly arbitrary point. This view is known as mereological nihilism, which states there are no composite objects e.g. chairs or skyscrapers, except fundamental particles. Dr.Craig comes with some comebacks, the emergence of the Tyrannosaurus Rex, for example, is an example of a new thing coming into existence completely independent of ourselves, it existed millions of years before humans ever came to begin (based on contemporary understanding). This is an example of a new thing coming into existence, which Alex seems to avoid by trying to pick a more difficult species to classify, namely humans, if we take a conventional understanding, a vast array of other hominids existed before we get to modern day homo-sapiens. But even this does little to muddy the waters, as we can grant this isn’t a clear case, but point out other things, like T.Rex beginning a finite time ago and before that, there were no T.Rex’s, and this is independent of our labelling it T.Rex as this is isn’t arbitrary, they objectively existed in the past. Additionally, a more clear-cut case is ourselves, I, at least began to exist and I’m sure anyone reading this, will agree, they began to exist a finite time ago, as it is beyond silly to think you existed in the Jurassic period, or at the formation of our planet and solar system or at the big bang! Moreover, even if you are willing to bite the bullet and admit, there are no composite objects other than fundamental particles, they began to exist at least, but in admitting there are no composite objects, you have to admit you, or anything else doesn’t really exist.
However, if you do hold that nothing does truly begin to exist, this would mean the inductive common day experience of seeking causes for things, wouldn’t be a valid point! But this doesn’t invalidate the first premise, as the philosophical arguments given above, would still be valid. Moreover, I would maintain my holding to the common inductive reasoning for cause and effect is a far more obvious than any prior assumption to try avoid the conclusion, in fact, this objection is more of an academic get out, than a plausible refutation.
2.Another point Alex raises, in relation to something not bring able to come from nothing. Is that, just as the ‘nothing’ described by the likes of Lawrence Krauss, isn’t nothing. So virtual particles wouldn’t be a case of something coming out of nothing. Alex pointed out, similarly if an Eskimo village did pop into my living room, that too wouldn’t be out of nothing. Dr. Craig rightly states we are referring or looking for efficient causes! If it was the case, no efficient cause is needed for the universe, then why is nothing so discriminatory that it only creates universes! Why not root beer and elephants just popping in and out of existence all the time?
3.Alex also asked, just as the property of a circle prohibits it being a square or something else, maybe, the universe has properties that make it the only thing that can come out of nothing, but we would be unable to know otherwise. Dr.Craig quickly points out that sans the universe there was nothing, so what properties can nothing possess? And similarly, there being nothing, nothing cannot have properties or have anything that can constrain it! It is simply nothing! Not a thing. Alex admits the notion is far fetched, but wanted to put it out there, as it is at least a way round the conclusion if one is willing to take such a view of reality, but it does mean it might lead to other conclusions that are less favourable.
The first premises of the kalam cosmological argument is obviously more plausibly true than its contradictory. Similarly, in light of both philosophical argument and scientific evidence, its second premises, though more controversial, is again more plausibly true than its negation. The conclusion of the argument involves no demonstrable incoherence and, when subjected to conceptual analysis, is rich in theological implications. On the basis of the kalam cosmological argument it is therefore plausible that an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
(3) Besides the paper by Ellis et al. cited below, see also Rüdiger Vaas, “Time before Time: Classifications of universes in contemporary cosmology, and how to avoid the antinomy of the beginning and eternity of the world,” http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0408111 (2004).
(4) G. F. R. Ellis, U. Kirchner, and W. R. Stoeger, “Multiverses and Physical Cosmology,” http://arXiv:astro-ph/0305292 v3 (28 August 2003), p. 14 (my emphasis).
(5) P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-9.
(6) John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 442.
(7) Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe (New York: Macmillan, 1933), p. 124.
(8) Ibid., p. 178
(10) Andrei Linde has offered a critique, suggesting that BVG imply that all the individual parts of the universe have a beginning, but perhaps the WHOLE does not. This seems misconstrued, however, since BVG are not claiming that each past inextendible geodesic is related to a regional singularity. Rather, they claim that Linde’s universe description contains an internal contradiction. As we look backwards along the geodesic, it must extend to the infinite past if the universe is to be past eternal. But it does not (for the observer co-moving with the expansion). Rather, past inextendible geodesics are the ‘symptom’, not the ‘disease.’ As Robert Wald says (Wald 1984, p. 216), “Unfortunately, the singularity theorems give virtually no information about the nature of the singularities of which they prove existence.” So we don’t know the nature of the singularity that the BVG theorem indicates; we know only that Linde’s description of an infinite past is in error.
(11) Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176.
(12) Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin, “Did the universe have a beginning?” ArXiv 1204.4658v1 [hep-th] 20 April 2012. Cf. his statement “There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning” (A. Vilenkin, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” lecture at Cambridge University, 2012). Specifically, Vilenkin closed the door on three models attempting to avert the implication of his theorem: eternal inflation, a cyclic universe, and an “emergent” universe which exists for eternity as a static seed before expanding.
(13) Lisa Grossman, “Why physicists can't avoid a creation event,” New Scientist 11 January 2012.