A retired elementary particle physicist Victor J. Stenger, contrary to contemporary cosmology, still stands firm in a possibility of eternal universe.
In his talk given on November 7th 2012 at the Boulder Socrates Café, “How Can Something Come From Nothing?”, Stenger echoed Bertrand Russell’s 1948’s objection rose in a debate with Frederick C. Copleston while discussing the cosmological argument. Stenger contended,
A common question I get from religious believers is “How can something come from nothing?” They seem to think it’s the final clincher proving the existence of God—or at least some form of supernatural creation. Of course, they don’t say how God came from nothing. Or, if they do, they claim God always existed and so did not have to come from anything. But then, why couldn’t the universe have always existed? In fact, modern cosmology suggests that it did—that the universe is eternal. (Stenger 2012: n.p underline original)
After taking a similar Lawrence Krauss’ route on “nothing” and contending for multiverses, Stenger concluded his talk,
“So, how can the multiverse have come From Nothing? Since the multiverse always existed, it didn’t have to come from anything.”(ibid)
On March 17th of 2012 in New Scientist, a magazine with the aim of keeping us up to date with science and technology news, Stenger explained that we should have found evidence from astronomy and physics if God were its creator, but we don’t he wrote. He went further to inform us that “modern cosmology suggests an eternal ‘multiverse’ in which many other universes comes and go”(Stenger 2012: 47)
Should we tell Stenger that a month earlier, 14th of January, in the same magazine, Lisa Grossman reported the “Death of eternal cosmos: From the cosmic egg to the infinite multiverses every model of the universe has a beginning”? Should we tell Stenger that on 1st December 2012, New Scientist’s magazine cover story stated that: “Before The Big Bang: Three Reasons Why The Universe Can’t Have Existed Forever”? No. Don’t tell Stenger.
Grossman And Chown: What We Should Not Tell Stenger
Back in January 14th, in New Scientist magazine featuring Hawking’s 70th birthday, Grossman’s article, Death of the eternal cosmos: From the cosmic egg to the infinite multiverse, every model of the universe has a beginning, ironically began,
YOU could call them the worst birthday presents ever. At the meeting of minds convened last week to honour Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday – loftily titled “State of the Universe”’ two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos”
Grossman reported that cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston went through different models and concluded that space-time can’t possibly be eternal in the past and that all the evidence that modern cosmologist have say that the universe had a beginning.(Grossman 2012: 6-7)
Truth never sleeps. Just in case Stenger missed that issue nor follows updates in modern cosmology anymore, New Scientist’s cover story of 1st December 2012 went deeper than Grossman’s article, giving three reasons why the universe can’t have existed forever.
Chown’s article, In The Beginning: Has the cosmos existed forever, or did something bring it into existence? explained that “until recently an answer[to settle the question whether the universe has away been here] seemed as distant as ever”(Chown 2012: 33). He went further,
However, earlier this year, cosmologists Alex Vilenkin and Audrey Mithani claimed to have settled the debate. They have uncovered reasons why the universe cannot have existed forever.”(ibid)
Chown reported that Vilenkin went through singularity theorems/eternal inflation; “[u]niverses have always been inflating from the vacuum and always will”], cyclic universe; “4D universes repeatedly collide together in a fifth dimension crating a big bang events” and emergent universe; “[t]ing universe has existed forever but blew up to its present size”, and showed the flaws in forever.(Chown 2012: 34-35)
So, should we update Stenger on what modern cosmology says on this issue? Should we tell him eternal cosmos is dead? You decide.
Question: Would I be wrong in thinking that Stenger’s faith in eternal universe has nothing to do with science but with religion?
Bibliography:
Chown, Marcus (2012) “In The Beginnning: Has the cosmos existed forever, or did something bring it into existence?” in New Scientist of 1 December 2012: 2893
Grossman, Lisa (2012) “Death of the eternal cosmos. From the cosmic egg to the infinite multiverse, every model of the universe has a beginning” in New Scientist of 14th January 2012: 2847
Stenger, Victor J. (2012) “The God Hypothesis” in New Scientist of 17th March 2012: 2856
___________________ (2012) “How Can Something Comes From Nothing?” November 7th 2012 Talk at the Boulder Socrates Cafe.
Coverphoto: New Scientist 1 December 2012, Before big bang: New Scientist 14th January 2012 & Andrew David’s Bertrand Russell
Excellent article Prayson! Brian, please forgive me for pointing this out but Vilenkin, who is one of the worlds most respected practicing cosmologists is also an ATHEIST. He is not unequivocal about the past finitude of this universe or indeed a multi-verse, because it suits him. He is unequivocal because the SCIENCE is unequivocal & this is all that Daniel has pointed out. Stenger is pretty much out on a limb if he still disputes the evidence (see the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem of 2003) which Vilenkin remains unequivocal about. The vast majority of the cosmological fraternity still hold to Vilenkin’s findings. In fact I know of no-one that can discredit them scientifically. And this is one of Daniels’ other main points: Stenger doesn’t disprove the science at all, he (just as you seem to be doing too!) basically ignores what the science says & appeals to some hope that one day these unequivocal findings, made by one the world’s foremost Atheist cosmologists, will one day be superseded. Surely that’s not much of a counter-argument is it??
So….what this article is stating is that different people have different theories about the cosmos? Why exactly is this newsworthy? Or was the article merely an attempt to discredit one atheist scientist, by claiming that other scientists don’t agree with him?
When all theists agree on the nature of the cosmos and it’s beginning, then maybe you can look down your nose at non-theists for not being in total agreement on things. Until then, you just come off as petty.
Thanks Brian. My aim was to show that Stenger together with any atheists who hold to eternal universe(s) are in contradiction with modern cosmology.
Brian, it is not that some people have different theories about the cosmos, but as a leading cosmologist, Alex Vilenkin, put it, all, not some, the evidence cosmologist have point to finite universe(s). No matter which theory one holds, as long as space-time is increasing, then one is forced by contemporary cosmology to a finite universe(s).
My aim was to show that some atheists because of the faith in atheism, trying everything to avoid a beginning of the universe, hold scientific false position.
Contradiction with modern cosmology is nothing new…what we define as “modern cosmology” was once pretty radical, and many leading cosmologists laughed at the idea. Having a different world-view doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re wrong…only that you’re not in agreement with the current status quo.
I think I know where your misunderstanding is now. You seem to have the idea that somehow someone’s atheism and the belief that the universe had a beginning are incompatible. Where did you get this idea? There are atheists who believe the universe began, and atheists who believe that it had no beginning. I don’t think there’s any causation between the two.
I find it interesting that the cosmological theories of an atheist would be noteworthy enough to warrant an entire article on a religion-themed blog. Are there lots of other scientific articles here, or was this just a one-off to take a shot at one atheist (and atheism in general)? Do you spend as much time trying to discredit Hindu’s, Buddhists, Tribal theists and others, or do you mainly focus on atheists? I’m not passing judgement here, but I’m always baffled when Christians seem to give a free pass to most non-Christians but focus on atheists. There are plenty of atheists who seem to spend a lot of time focusing on Christianity too, and I’m equally mystified as to their motivation.
O Brian. I did claim that some atheists hold to eternal universe to avoid the genesis contrary to contemporary cosmology.
Some like Quentin Smith, changed position given the proof now in place, as Peter Atkins, contend that the universe somehow caused itself. Krauss contended for a universe out of “something-nothing”, while Hawkins asserted that given the laws the universe would create itself.
I am familiar with both atheists who keep denying the genesis of the universe(s) and those who accepts and take radicle positions which are metaphysically absurd.
Brian, I do not give anyone a pass, being a theist or not, if they hold bad science.
Why did you attribute Stenger’s cosmological beliefs to his atheism, as opposed to merely holding to a different scientific theory? Perhaps is lack of belief in Gods is the cause of his choice in cosmological worldviews, but as of yet I haven’t come across anything that suggests that. Any links you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Hej Brian. I provided a link in bibliography and I think it will answer why I attributed Stenger’s position to his atheism. For he held that position to avoid God as a best explanation.
And the Higgs boson tells us essentially ti’s peradventure a matter of cyclical universes. Your out of context argument helps to shore up the case that theists are ever desperate to have Sky Pappy, Being Itself[ it!].
WLC misstates what Vilenkin states.
God can never be the best explanation as God did it is no more than a supreme mystery, surrounded by still others, and as superstitious as full animism; indeed, Lamberth’s theism = reduced animism argument makes more sense. Per Lamberth’s mechanistic argument, science finds no divine intent, and without that intent, God has no referents as Creator and so forth and thus cannot exist, and having contradictory and incoherent attributes, again He cannot exist. His the ignostic-Ockham gives reason why He is useless as any kind of explanation.
As Keith Parsons notes” Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unknown purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good answer.”
Indeed. Fuller details exist at:http://ignosticmorgan.wordpress.com
http://igtheist.blogspot.com
Science, as Stenger notes, finds no God. How could it ever find a square circle? How could one have a loving relationship with a non-starter?
For the science about the boson: http://cosmosway.wordpress.com article inherently unstable
Thank you LamberthG for your input. But I believe you did not address my article nor my comment.
I contended that Stenger held his position to avoid God as a best explanation. If multiverses are eternal, and do exist, then they would be an explanation.
Thanks you though for your comment.
I looked through the link to Stenger’s talk on “How can Something Come from Nothing”, and I didn’t see any indication that he based his cosmological beliefs on merely trying to avoid God. Is that the right source, or did you mean something specific in one of the other bibliographical entries?