I seem to have struck a nerve with a few unbelievers on X.com with my last post (here). I had given five problems in believing the universe is eternally old and some critics tried to explain why I was wrong. One skeptic in particular made a brief rebuttal to each point. Other skeptics chimed in with similar thoughts.
I don’t normally engage skeptics too much on social media. It seems like once it starts, it’s hard to end the conversation and it ends up consuming all my time. Instead, I thought I’d take some of their comments and address them here, in a new post. Maybe they’ll leave future comments on my blog.
Before getting into their comments, one thing that struck me is that, by criticizing my arguments against an infinitely old universe, I can only assume they are tacitly admitting that the universe is infinitely old. Once upon a time, some people believed in the Steady State Theory of the universe. Explainingscience.org describes the theory this way:
[F]or a while the Steady State theory was very popular. This theory was developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), Herman Bondi (1919-2005) and Thomas Gold (1920-2004) as an alternative to the Big Bang to explain the origin and expansion of the Universe. At the heart of the Steady State theory is the Perfect Cosmological Principle. This states that the Universe is infinite in extent, infinitely old and, taken as a whole, it is the same in all directions and at all times in the past and at all times in the future. In other words, the Universe doesn’t evolve or change over time.
We see that the Steady State Theory is an alternative to the Big Bang. It’s not especially popular anymore and the Big Bang Theory is now the most widely accepted origin story in the secular science community. Holders to the Steady State Theory are definitely the minority and could be described as fringe. So, as I read the comments attempting to rebut my five points, I had to ask myself, do these people really believe in an infinitely old universe? I doubt the critics commenting on my X thread really endorse the Steady State Theory. I think, instead, they were simply disagreeing with a creationist without realizing they essentially agree with all my points. Oh the irony!!
The primary critic posting on my thread goes by the handle God Fodder (@PeteAlonSoCrazy). In his bio is the hash tag, #Atheism, which leads me to believe maybe there’s a bias there. No worries; I have a bias too. It’s just nice to know his frame of mind as I read his arguments. I’m using his points to outline my rebuttal.
To be fair, due to character limits on X, God Fodder had to keep his rebuttals to a few sentences. I think he made his points fairly well and I think it’s obvious what he was getting at with all of them. However, if had been able to write longer responses, he might have made better arguments. But, these are all I have so they are what I have to work with.
Are we ready, then? Let’s look at some of the comments. I will note my points with RKB and his response with GF:
RKB: 1. It's not scientific.
GF: Yes because the origin of the universe is UNKNOWN. God is in the same boat. Not an argument against it.
OK, so on point #1 we are in agreement. Claiming the universe is eternally old is a faith statement not unlike a religious dogma. I’ve written before about how some things in science rely on faith and how scientism is a danger to science.
My pointing out the faith-like assumptions behind believing the universe is infinitely old is meant to disqualify it from being scientific. People only cling to it because they don’t want to believe in an Eternal Creator. In a real sense, they are merely using their faith to attack my faith.
By the way, GF also has contradicted an oft used criticism of creationism. Creationists are often told that creation can’t be true because it’s not scientific!! So I agree with GF - just because something isn’t scientific isn’t sufficient to prove it’s not true.
RKB: Entropy
GF: Without knowing the cause of the Big Bang causes this is complete guesswork. Let me guess, entropy magically does not apply to god? Why?
GF is employing a sort of “you too” response as though it excuses him from explaining why the universe isn’t already in total entropy. It seems, to me, a tacit admission that an enterally old universe should have reached entropy already but, since God hasn’t reached entropy, then it doesn’t matter. //RKBentley scratches his head//
There is nothing in this response - not one thing - that attempts to explain how energy could be eternally old without having reached heat death. Let me remind the readers, too, that claiming the universe is infinitely old yet still has usable energy is to admit that perpetual motion exists!
Concerning God, entropy is a property of the universe. It’s an observed part of nature. God, by definition, is supernatural so I don’t expect the things of nature to apply to Him. This is like saying, “How could Jesus walk on water? Does gravity or buoyancy magically not apply to Him?”
RKB: Time
GF: How does an eternal consciousness experience time? Eternal god has just as many issues if not more.
More “you too.” Sigh. God does not experience time. Psalm 90:4 tells us of the Lord, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”
Time is a property of the universe. We experience time. Since God is transcendent and supernatural, therefore, there’s no reason to believe He experiences time like us.
Again, there’s no rebuttal here. The inescapable conclusion of the Steady State Theory is that we have arrived here after infinity has already passed!
RKB: Universe is expanding.
GF: So what? It could be in a cycle or big bangs could be repeated. Why would a god make an expanding universe? What’s the point?
I see a lot of things wrong with GF’s response. First, a cycle of bang-crunch-bang-crunch universes is another faith statement (see point #1). There is no scientific evidence to support it.
Next, this flies in the face of entropy (see point #2). Imagine a spring that continuously springs out, then contracts again - infinitely! What, it never runs out of energy? It’s perpetual motion all over again.
Finally, what about Aristotle’s “First Cause” argument? GF is simply invoking an infinite regress of bang-crunch events with nothing to start the chain. It’s turtles all the way down to him!
RKB: Bible
GF: Who care what an ancient story book says?
Really bad reasoning here.
There are billions of people in the world who care very much about what the Bible says. Why do you think the Bible is still so popular after more than 2,000 years?
I believe the Bible for the same reasons I believe anything - I’m convinced that it’s true. There are myriad reasons I believe it’s true but I’ll have to save that discussion for another time. To ignore the Bible in favor of a theory that makes literally no sense would indeed be “really bad reasoning”!