Latest post in my blog on popular science:
The Origin of the Universe and the Immortality of the Soul
https://populscience.blogspot.com/2026/10/the-origin-of-universe-and-immortality.html
Regards,
As the Lord High Heretic of SpareOom, I kind of miss the days when the Golden Dragon of SpareOom would descend with a boom in a plume of smoke and fire to correct this heretic from the error of his ways. I miss Ray for a lot of reasons.
So, Manuel, you may remember that I am one of those “heretical” Christians that do not believe the faith requires belief in a finite universe. I believe that God infuses the entire universe and is the source of all life and intelligence in it, and has no actual beginning nor end. You have, in the past, pretty strenuously argued (if I remember accurately) that this is wrong not just on scriptural grounds (which I, of course, deny) but on scientific grounds, particularly the second law of thermodynamics.
So your latest blog post had one statement in it that really caught my attention, when you wondered what Thomas Aquinas would have made of the Big Bang and the second law of thermodynamics, which were not yet formulated in his day. You write that these two theories “suggest (but do not prove) that the universe had a beginning.”
That surprised me, because I don’t remember you ever allowing for any possibility of compatibility with the second law and any kind of infinite universe. I would be interested in your further thoughts on how the second law might be compatible with an infinite universe (even if it seems to “suggest” otherwise).
If you think this would not be of general interest to the group, I would definitely like to consider your thinking on this if you would communicate it to me via a private communication.
Very interesting blog post, as always.
Sincerely
Michael
Hello, Mike! I remember my several debates with you. Here I won’t go into the theological point of view, which we have discussed before, but on the scientific. We can continue the discussion here, unless someone protests.
You speak of an infinite universe, but it could be infinite in several different directions: in space, in time, in mass, in speed of expansion…
I am assuming that you meant a universe that is infinite in time. The Big Bang is a strong inkling that the universe had an origin in time, but it’s not a proof, because it could be the result of a previous state, although we know nothing about how that state would be. There are several theories about possible pre-Big-Bang states, but none of them is convincing. Most of those theories predict a dumping cyclic universe, where each cycle is lower than the previous, and if time were infinite, we’d be now in the minimum entropy, which we are not. But a hypothetical new theory can never be excluded. Thus my qualification.
If we apply the second principle of Thermodynamics to the universe, we can predict that its entropy will go down in the future, and that it reached a maximum at the time of the Big Bang. But our theories do not reach back beyond the Big Bang, if such a time existed.
About a universe infinite in space, I published a paper: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space, F.J.Soler Gil, M.Alfonseca. THEORIA (An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science), 81(2014): 361-373.
In that paper, my co-author and I give some reasons to doubt that such an infinity is applicable to the universe.
Regards,
But of course if the big bang is a fiction, as I think it is, then none of that applies. Also, in that case, isn’t it possible that entropy could work differently in different times and places of the wide wide universe? I realize that it is difficult to conceive of a “universe” that is infinite, with no beginning and no end, is difficult to conceive of or grasp (regardless of the parameters chosen), but does substituting the word “god” make it suddenly easy? I don’t see how.
Regards, Micheal
In 1927, Georges Lemaître discovered that the universe is expanding. In 1931, extrapolating backwards, he proposed the Big Bang theory. In 1948, Alpher Gamow and Herman predicted that, if the Big Bang theory were correct, the composition of the universe should be 75% hydrogen and 25% helium in mass, and there should exist a cosmic background radiation at about 5 Kelvin. Both predictions were confirmed during the 1960s. The two surprisingly accurate predictions validated the Big Bang theory, which since then became the standard cosmological theory.
Can the theory be proved wrong? Of course, as every scientific theory, by making a false prediction. Up to now, this has not happened. Another way would be to offer a different theory that should also explain the two surprisingly accurate predictions without the need of a Big Bang. There have been attempts in this direction, but all have failed. Will new ones also fail in the future? Who knows! As Yogi Berra said, It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.
Regards,
Manuel, you are massively massively MASSively overstating the case for the big bang. For one thing, Gamow and Herman in 1948 authored close to ten different papers/predictions regarding their proposed big bang expansion theory and they did not all agree, and many were clearly wrong. The theory was so uncertain that it was in 1948/49 that Fred Hoyle proposed a steady-state theory as an alternative to the big bang. He also advanced stellar nucleosynthesis to explain helium composition in the universe and many scientists thought it trumped Big Bang nucleosynthesis because the latter more or less stops with helium. Hoyle was clearly wrong in some aspects, too; the universe is far more dynamic than “steady” in state…it changes!
The big bang is a singularity theory, and it constantly has run into both mathematical and observational difficulties. I do not believe singularities exist, except in mathematics that try to explain/deal with infinities. The big bang has fallen out of favor and back into favor numerous times in the late 20th century. The Cosmic Background radiation measurements are what often are cited as the big bangs greatest evidence. Yet the evidence is not that strong.
It is not clear either from science or theology that the universe as a whole was ever created. Especially “created from nothing.” In fact, I think the evidence is building for a universe that is infused with God, and has always existed with — and as part of — God, so that God IS a creator, and has always and ever been a creator, and will always create using the palate of himself.
Regards,
Michael
Someone replied to a topic you are Watching.
The big bang is a singularity theory, and it constantly has run into both mathematical and observational difficulties. I do not believe singularities exist, except in mathematics that try to explain/deal with infinities. The big bang has fallen out of favor and back into favor numerous times in the late 20th century. The Cosmic Background radiation measurements are what often are cited as the big bangs greatest evidence. Yet the evidence is not that strong.
I think the evidence of the CBR is strong. What you say (t**he big bang has fallen out of favor and back into favor numerous times in the late 20th century) is not exactly true. What you mean is, there have been many attempts to find alternative explanations. I mentioned that in my previous e-mail. They all failed.
It is not clear either from science or theology that the universe as a whole was ever created. Especially “created from nothing.” In fact, I think the evidence is building for a universe that is infused with God, and has always existed with — and as part of — God, so that God IS a creator, and has always and ever been a creator, and will always create using the palate of himself.
This is somewhat similar to what Thomas Aquinas said and I mentioned in my post. Here we fully agree. God’s creation is permanent, from our point of view. God did not create the universe at an initial time and left it running alone, as deists thought. He creates the universe as a whole. He’s creating it always, initial time or not.
Regards,
Very interesting posts concerning the beginning of the universe and the immortality of the soul. I’ve more or less retreated from various theories of HOW the universe began and am more focused on THAT it began as God’s unique creative work. Theories which seem to move towards merging God with His creation raise all kinds of red flags with me. I have no personal preferences for any theories of HOW God created the universe or how He will call time on it in order to make way for His new universe.
I very much appreciate Richard Bauckham’s work on the God of Israel, (Jesus and the God of Israel), the legitimacy of the Gospels as eyewitness history, and the theology of the book of Revelation. His books are easily available on Amazon.
What distinguishes the God of Israel from all other “gods” is that He created all things and is sovereign over all things. God is on one side (and for Bauckham God is the Trinity) and everything else is on another side, owing its existence and its rule to this God.
As a first century historian and Biblical scholar (St Andrews, Cambridge), Bauckham has the credentials to make the case he makes for the God of Israel and Jesus as included with the God of Israel.
What I find interesting is that the Bible supports a new creation beginning with the resurrection of Jesus, ongoing in the new creation of humanity in Christians, and ending with a new earth and heavens. Believing in the literal, physical bodily resurrection of Jesus seems to be a line in the sand in the New Testament which separates believers from non-believers. “Touch me and see, a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see I have,” is one of the most thrilling statements ever made. The resurrection of Jesus was NOT a resuscitation (as His raising of Lazarus, for example, was). In my imagination, it was a new “Big Bang.”
Blessings,
Ruby
Another interesting book about the historicity of the Gospels is “Cold case Christianity” by J. Warner Wallace, a homicide detective specialized in cold cases, who applied his experience to the case of the Resurrection of Jesus.
Regards,
Yes, I’ve heard of Wallace’s book. Very interesting. This post in Christian Scholars Review made me think of you, Manuel.
https://christianscholars.com/reinforcement-learning-a-christian-perspective/
Blessings,
Ruby