“Yes, after all…

- That is to say, “…the universe's beginning wasn't an explosion. It was closer to an unfolding, or creation, of matter, energy, time,—space itself.” [Luz Kruesi, “Cosmology: 5 Things you need to Know,” in
*Astronomy*(May 2007): 31.] - One might suggest that space has has been eternally expanding, but in response there is a theorem in place which proves that a Universe eternally inflating/expanding on average requires infinitely-fast travel

**All space-time expanded from a nothing-point (a singularity)**

• …(General Relativity) GR’s Singularity Big-Bang model is true.This is relevant because, “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” [J. Barrow and F. Tipler,

• …(BGV Theorem) Spacetimes expanding on average all begin.

• …(2nd Law) Total entropic decay has not arrived yet.

• …(Generalized 2nd Law) Total generalized entropy has not maxed out yet.

**Wait, no**,

•… Space has been *eternally* expanding (there is no past-boundary). [See response]^{2}

**But so what?** Plausibly…

•…Expansion from a singularity-beginning is a *non-event*. [Forthcoming]

** (Big Bang Theory): General relativity (GR) is true, sufficiently accurately describing the full birth and growth of space from a singularity**? Three evidences for this are:

• …General relativity makes accurate prediction elsewhere.This is relevant because,

• …Space in fact did expand from a hot-dense state.

• …Spacetime came into being from fromsomesingularity. [See above]

“If we push backwards far enough, we find that the universe reaches a state of compression where the density and gravitational force are infinite. This unique singularity constitutes the beginning of the universe—of matter, energy, space, time, and all physical laws. It is not that the universe arose out of some prior state, for there was no prior state. Since time too comes to be, one cannot ask what happened before the initial event. Neither should one think that the universe expanded from some state of infinite density into space; space too came to be in that event. Since the Big Bang initiates the very laws of physics, one cannot expect any scientific or physical explanation of this singularity.” [Bruce Reichenbach, “Cosmological Arguments,” inThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(2017)]

**No,**

•… Physical reality did not being to exist at a singularity?

**But so what?** Plausibly…

•…The singularity is preceded by other spacetime regions and/or universes.[Forthcoming]

- •
**Alexander Vilenkin**: “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.”

•**William Lane Craig & James Sinclair**: “The Borde–Vilenkin–Guth (BVG) singularity theorem is now widely accepted within the physics community. As of this writing, it has gone largely unchallenged.” [*The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology*(Blackwell, 2004), 142.]

•**Gott-Li**: “The question of first-cause has been a troubling one for cosmology. Often, this has been solved by postulating a universe that has existed forever in the past. Big Bang models supposed that the first-cause was a singularity… with a proper theory-of-everything, one could perhaps push through to earlier times. Inflation has solved some of these problems, but Borde and Vilenkin have shown that if the initial inflationary state is metastable, then it must have had a finite beginning also. Ultimately, the problem seems to be how to create something out of nothing.” [J. Richard Gott and Li-Xin Li, “Can the Universe Create Itself?” (1997), p.41]

•**Audrey Mithani, Alexander Vilenkin**: “Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes. Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse. Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse." [Did the universe have a beginning?, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf] - We know this because any eternally inflating space would require infinitely fast travel. This is relevant because an object traveling infinitely fast in space is impossible, producing absurdities and violating the laws of relativity.
•

**James Sinclair**: "Vilenkin affirms that any universe (including universes modeled by higher dimensional cosmology, pre–Big Bang cosmology, and so forth,) which, on average, expands has to connect, in a finite time, to a past boundary (pers. comm. with Sinclair, March 4, 2004).

•**Alexander Vilenkin**: "Our argument shows that null and time-like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. (Borde, Guth, & Vilenkin 2003, p. 3)39 A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible. [*Many Worlds in One*(2006), 175) - The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves any universe expanding on average, including Pre-Big Bang and higher dimensional cosmologies, has a beginning. It explains that if a universe could be expanding on average for a past-infinity of time, then an impossible object would need to be: an inertial object moving at infinity speed—faster than the speed of light.

Here is a simplification: Imagine a huge helium balloon with stationary ants scattered around it. Suddenly, one flying ant tells his friend, “I’m racing to the tip top to meet the queen!” His friend registers the flight speed as 4mph. However, the next ant he passes only registers his speed as 3 mph, and the next at 2 mph. What’s happening? The balloon is inflating! Similarly, in an inflating space, inertial objects (e.g. a bullet) are registered as slowing down relative to non-inertial objects that are carried by space (e.g. galaxies). From this we can prove all inertial objects have a finite past. If bullet-like are slowing down on average, then as you rewind the tape their speed is faster and faster. However, inertial objects can’t move infinitely fast. They can’t even move faster than the speed of light.

So, while inertial objects moving through inflating space for the entirety of the space’s existence is possible, it is impossible for an inertial object to have been moving through space for an infinity of time. Therefore, inflating spaces are not past-eternal.

**Any Universe eternally inflating/expanding on average requires infinitely-fast travel **(Experts

•…see Vilenkin's spacetraveler explanation.This is relevant because space has been expanding, and yet an object traveling infinitely fast in space is impossible. (It produces philosophical absurdities and violates the causality principle in Einstein’s special relativity).

**But so what?** Plausibly… … [All forthcoming]

•…Space contracts on average,

. •… because of an infinite contraction phase.

•…Space is static on average,

. •… because of infinite cycling.

•…Because of an infinite contraction phase (during time-reversal).

**• Fred Hoyle**: “If the universe were infinitely old, no hydrogen would be left in it, because hydrogen is steadily converted into helium throughout the universe, and this conversion is a one-way process. But in fact the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen. Thus the universe must have had a definite beginning.”**• Paul Davies**: “The first is that the universe will eventually die, wallowing, as it were, in its own entropy. This is known among physicists as the ‘heat death’ of the universe. The second is that the universe cannot have existed for ever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist.” [*God and the New Physics*(Simon & Schuster, 1983), 11.]**• Paul Davies**: “[The idea] that the universe has always existed in one form or another-runs into a rather basic paradox. The sun and stars cannot keep burning forever: sooner or later they will run out of fuel and die. The same is true of all irreversible physical processes; the stock of energy available in the universe to drive them is finite, and cannot last for eternity. This is an example of the so-called second law of thermodynamics, which, applied to the entire cosmos, predicts that it is stuck on a one-way slide of degeneration and decay towards a final state of maximum entropy, or disorder. As this final state has not yet been reached, it follows that the universe cannot have existed for an infinite time.” [“The Big Bang - And Before.” The Thomas Aquinas College Lecture Series, Thomas Aquinas College, March 2002. (As cited by Craig)]**• P. J. Zwart**: “…according to the second law the whole universe must eventually reach a state of maximum entropy. It will then be in thermodynamical equilibrium; everywhere the situation will be exactly the same, with the same composition, the same temperature, the same pressure etc., etc. There will be no objects any more, but the universe will consist of one vast gas of uniform composition. Because it is in complete equilibrium, absolutely nothing will happen any more. The only way in which a process can begin in a system in equilibrium is through an action from the outside, but an action from the outside is of course impossible if the system in question is the whole universe. So in this future state of maximal entropy, the universe would be in absolute rest and complete darkness, and nothing could disturb the dead silence. Even if there would by chance occur a small deviation from the state of absolute equalization it would of itself rapidly vanish again. Because almost all energy would have been degraded, i.e. converted into kinetic energy of the existing particles (heat), this supposedly future state of the universe, which will also be its last state, is called the heat death of the universe.” [*About Time*(North-Holland, 1976), 136.] (As cited by Craig)]

**Total entropic decay hasn’t arrived yet.** (E.g. stars are still burning.) This is relevant because, if the Universe were past-infinite, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics demands that the universe would have already reached a state of thermodynamic equilibrium (“heat death”; no more useable energy).

[Forthcoming] See Aron Wall's paper, “The Generalized Second Law implies a Quantum Singularity Theorem).” in *Classical and Quantum Gravity* Vol 30 No 16 (2013)] (Updated 2016).

•Aron Wall: “…it strongly suggests that either the universe had a finite beginning in time, or else it is spatially finite and the arrow of time was reversed previous to the Big Bang [I.e. time goes backwards]. In the latter case, it could still be said that the universe had a beginning in a thermodynamic sense, because both branches of the cosmology would be to the thermodynamic future of the Big Bang” [Classical and Quantum GravityVol 30 No 16 (2013), p.27 on arXive.]

**Logically, the number of previous events needs to be finite** (I.e. there was a first “event”). After all,

• …Infinity can't exist in the worldThis is relevant because if the number of previous events is finite, if tracing history backwards brings one to a

• …Infinity can't be formed by adding

“No, after all…

**A beginningless universe model is true.** For example… [All Forthcoming]

•…The Aguirre-Gratton Time reversal model

•…The Baum-Frampton Cyclic model

•…The Carroll-Chen Reversed arrow of time model

•…The Gott-Li model

•…The Hawking-Hartle “no boundary” proposal

•…The Linde-type “Eternal Inflation” model

•…The Penrose Conformal Cyclic cosmology

•…The Steinhardt/Turok Cyclic model

•…The Vilenkin “Tunneling from nothing” model

•…The String Landscape inflationary model

•…[See more]

This is relevant because, “If we were able to construct a complete and compelling naturalistic account, the necessity of appealing to God would be diminished.” [Sean Carroll, *The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity*]