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, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford, 1986), 442.]1
• …(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.
(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 from some singularity. [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,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017)]
But so what? Plausibly…
•…The singularity is preceded by other spacetime regions and/or universes.[Forthcoming]
Any Universe eternally inflating/expanding on average requires infinitely-fast travel (Experts1)(Elaboration2)(Justification3).
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).
• 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)
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 Gravity Vol 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,
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
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]