The Impossibility of Infinity.
This third episode of Evidence for Belief discusses the impossibility of infinity as a real number of events or seconds in a physical universe. It provides powerful evidence that an eternally existing universe is both logically and scientifically impossible. The episode examines the profound implications of Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics as well as several philosophical arguments, all of which point to the inescapable conclusion that the universe had a finite beginning. Atheists can no longer hide behind the outdated Steady State model of the universe, but must now confront the question of ultimate causation. And the most logical cause is a metaphysical, all-powerful Creator.
MEDIA:
VIDEO: Evidence for Belief, Episode 3: The Impossibility of Infinity
(NOTE: You can watch ALL video episodes in this series on my YouTube channel)
AUDIO PODCAST: Evidence for Belief, Episode 3: The Impossibility of Infinity
TRANSCRIPT
Welcome to Episode 3 of Evidence For Belief, a series which examines evidence for the existence of God. This will be the final session dealing with COSMOLOGY, and in particular, the question of the question of the origin of the universe. In the next episode, we’ll be moving on to a completely different area of evidence. But in this episode, we’ll continue to explore the concept of the universe having a finite origin, this time turning to some fascinating theoretical and philosophical considerations.
Although the Big Bang Theory as an explanation for the universe’s beginning now has some serious problems and therefore faces growing opposition within the scientific community, almost all scientists still agree that the overwhelming evidence of cosmology indicates that the universe began somehow. The actual process of that beginning is unclear, but its fact of its beginning is now almost universally accepted.
The finite origin of the universe is further confirmed by several other powerful theoretical arguments. And the first of these centres around the second law of thermodynamics.
Newton’s second law of thermodynamics indicates that in any closed system, the total amount of energy available diminishes over time. This is referred to as entropy, and, when applied to cosmology, it simply means that the universe is gradually winding down and heading inexorably toward thermodynamic equilibrium. This means that over time the universe is getting progressively dispersing its heat and energy and it will one day reach a point of equilibrium. Our observation of the nature and function of stars confirms this.
Because stars are finite bodies with finite mass and energy it is not possible for them to burn continuously for eternity. Given sufficient time, each star will eventually exhaust its fuel and burn itself out of existence. This is a simple logical extension of Newton’s theory. This provides irrefutable proof that the universe cannot have existed forever. If the universe had existed for eternity past, it would have burnt itself out by now! And this is how it would look now … no light, no heat, just cold, dark nothingness.
So that’s the first point: the second law of thermodynamics leads us to conclude that the universe cannot have existed forever. Because instead of looking like this …
the universe, thankfully, still looks like this …
PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS
The second theoretical argument for the universe having a beginning comes from the area of philosophy. Al-Ghazali, a Persian philosopher in the Middle Ages, proposed a simple argument. He stated:
“If there were an infinite number of events in the past, we would never have arrived at the present”[i]
This simple, yet profound philosophical argument cannot be refuted without dismissing the laws of logic. Just consider his proposition for a moment. If time is a corridor and you started in the present and went back in time towards infinity past, you would never reach infinity past. You can’t reach infinity past from the present. You will never get there! In the same way, you can’t reach the present from infinity past. That is also impossible! Al-Ghazali’s theorem proves that the universe cannot have existed forever.
Extrapolating from this line of reasoning, it follows that an infinite regress of past ordered events is also impossible. Just as there can’t have been an infinite number of seconds in the past, neither can there have been an infinite number of events. Therefore, there must have been a first event.
The Argument From Contingency
The impossibility of infinite regress underlies what’s known as the Argument From Contingency. This argument has four logical steps:
- What we observe in this universe is contingent (in other words, everything has a cause).
- A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite.
- The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite.
- There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes.
If all that’s a bit philosophical for you, Al-Ghazali summed it up succinctly when he said:
“An infinite number of things cannot exist.”[ii]
Thanks Al! That’s much simpler. And the reason why an infinite number of things can’t exist is that the concept of infinity, while it is a helpful abstract concept in Mathematics, cannot actually exist in a physical universe. David Hilbert was a German Mathematician who came up with a brilliant way of explaining this concept. If you’re interested, you might want to check out his famous analogy, known as Hilbert’s Hotel.
The application of this to a consideration of the universe’s beginning is as follows:
- Infinity exists only as an abstract concept; it cannot exist as an actual number in a physical universe.
- Therefore, there cannot have been an infinite number of past events and past days, hours or seconds.
- Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning!
And the logical extension of this is that if the universe had a beginning, then it must have had a cause – because things don’t begin to exist by themselves.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
This brings us to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Kalam cosmological argument deals with the issue of ultimate cause. It is a philosophical argument, originating in the Middle Ages, and championed in recent years by apologist and theologian, Dr. William Lane Craig.
The original Kalam argument is as follows:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
William Lane Craig added to the argument:
- That cause must be timeless, immaterial, self-existent and powerful.
- The most reasonable cause is God.
This is a logical argument that, in my opinion, is completely watertight. What it’s essentially saying is that universe can’t have created itself, therefore the cause must lie outside of the universe!
Obdurate Atheism
Of course, there will always remain a core of hardened atheists who refuse to concede even this clear chain of logic. For example, Dr. Quentin Smith, professor emeritus of philosophy at Western Michigan University, in a debate with William lane Craig, stated:
“The universe came from nothing, by nothing for nothing!”[iii]
This, of course is a ludicrous proposition, and it illustrates that some atheists are prepared to believe in the impossible, rather than anything metaphysical. But the facts are increasingly against them.
Facing the Evidence
Scientists must now confront the astonishing fact that at some time in the distant past there was nothing at all. No stars, no planets, no asteroids, no gases, no chemicals, no elements, no physical matter at all. Nothing. And then a moment later, there was a universe!
Commenting on this, the late Stephen Hawking stated:
“We have made tremendous progress in cosmology in the last hundred years … which has shattered the old picture of an ever-existing and ever-lasting universe. … This is a profound change in our picture of the universe and of reality itself.” (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html)
He’s right! It IS a profound change in our picture of the universe and of reality itself. And, as I’ve been saying throughout these first three Episodes, how can nothing become something without a metaphysical cause? Or to put it another way … How can a physical universe begin to exist unless something or someone beyond the physical universe causes it to begin to exist?
Christian Scientists Speak Up
A growing number of scientists with a strong Christian faith are now daring to speak up. For instance, in April 2016, Dan Reynolds wrote:
“All the observable evidence we have about the universe implies it had a beginning … Logically, the universe did not and could not create itself. If the universe (nature) could/did not create itself and it had a beginning, then only something or someone outside of nature can account for the universe’s existence. Genesis 1:1 offers a credible explanation: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”[iv]
Dr Hugh Ross wrote;
“All the data accumulated in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries tell us that a transcendent Creator must exist. For all the matter, energy, nine space dimensions, and even time, each suddenly and simultaneously came into being from some source beyond itself. Likewise, it is valid to refer to the Creator as transcendent, for the act of causing these effects must take place outside or independent of them.”[v]
While many within the scientific community oppose such a strident creationist worldview, there is a growing if grudging acknowledgment within the scientific community of the very real possibility of metaphysical cause for the origin of the universe.
Media Bias
Of course, this is not the impression that continues to be dished up to us by the media. The humanist movement has a stranglehold on the popular press. Scientists with aggressive atheistic agendas dominate the airwaves, and their well-financed documentaries continue to pump out the mantra that science has a natural explanation for everything. The impression is given that the new god of science has all the answers sewn up. But scientists who are at the cutting edge of their fields know that this is not so.
The Best Explanation of the Evidence
The huge conundrum that the question of the universe’s origin poses leaves many scientists scratching their heads and concluding that we may never know how the universe was formed. But for those with open hearts and minds, the first verse of the Bible provides an explanation which is entirely logical and that fits perfectly with the observable evidence of the universe:
In the next episode I am going to move on from cosmology and begin to examine another category of evidence for the existence of a Creator: the evidence of intelligent design within the universe. We are going to move from examining the huge macro-world of the cosmos and zoom right in to glimpse the amazing world of the microscopic cell. We are going to exchange our telescope for a microscope. So don’t miss that, because I think you’re going to find the next few episodes fascinating and utterly mind-boggling!
For more information on any of these topics, you can check out my books.
……………………………….
FOOTNOTES:
[i] Al-Ghazali, quoted in Greg dewar, “Advanced Philosophy and Ethics of Religion”, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2002, p.18.
[ii] Al-Ghazali, quoted in Greg dewar, “Advanced Philosophy and Ethics of Religion”, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2002, p.18.
[iii] Debate between William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/does-god-exist-the-craig-smith-debate-2003/
[iv] https://tasc-creationscience.org/article/scientific-evidence-points-creator
[v] Dr Hugh Ross, “The Creator and The Cosmos”, Navpress, 2001, pp.108-112).