In honor of Stephen Hawking’s 70thbirthday a conference was held. And in this conference, there were two proposals posed being featured and one of which posed the greatest threat to the existing ‘models’ in cosmology. You see, back in the 1970’s there was an uproar over a book called; “God and the Astronomers” by astronomer Robert Jastrow.
What was the uproar about? In the book, astronomer Robert Jastrow suggested that the universe had a beginning and he was very surprised on how much opposition came from cosmologists as a result. This is because they knew fully well if the universe had a beginning, this would suggest it was created out of nothing and they found that to be implausible therefore leaving the door open for a creator. So secular cosmologists embraced the idea of an eternal universe or universes that have no beginning.
Not only was the conference honoring Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday but also it was a conference that was trying to carefully explain the universe with a beginning while being concerned about making any inferences towards God being the creator. In New Scientist, “the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.”
Stephen Hawking told his audience in a pre-recorded speech, “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,’ Sadly, Hawking is wrong, science doesn’t break for a creator, science has broken down for natural causes being the creator of the universe. Take the big bang ‘theory’ for an example, if it was true then scientists would be observing a chronological structure of different stages concerning galaxies development as one looks deeper into space. But like in biology, this hasn’t been the case, astronomers have discovered galaxies and stars that are more fully ‘evolved’ in a segment of distant space where it was thought to represent the early, immature universe. One such discovery was discovered not long ago, a cluster of galaxies known as CL J1449+0856.
Stephen Hawking likes to invoke the “M-theory” at the very core of his beliefs. But calling “M” a theory is a bit misleading because currently M-Theory is really not a theory at all, rather it’s a collection of different ideas (stories) with no observational or experimental data. He also invokes physical laws as the origin for the beginning of the universe.
“… physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.” -Professor and creationist at Oxford, John Lennox
John is correct, giving natural laws such profound abilities is not science but merely a man-made story in attempt to replace an intelligent creator namely, God. Back to “in the beginning”, there is a reason why a proposal of this kind has come out despite many objections for suggesting similar things in the past. New Scientist states this about the current status about an eternal universe, “cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead.”
Here are some of the reasons why these models have failed and considered to be “dead”…
The “cosmic egg” model where the universe hatches out of an existing eternal state. Last year, “Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096).”
The universe bouncing eternally in an organized state from expansion to contraction. This doesn’t fit the laws of the physical universe, because “disorder increases with time.” So after each cycle the universe increases in chaos, so given the old universe time frame, it would have already reached maximum disorder.
Inflation with eternal life. Extrapolated from Alan Guth’s 1981 inflation proposal where universes forming and inflating spontaneously forever and ever. Why does this model fail? Because equations still require a boundary in the past as pointed out by Vilenkin and Guth back in 2003.
No model of an eternal universe has been shown to work. New Scientist calls it a “Genesis Problem”. Science has not broken down, it’s as good as ever and it is confirming God’s word! What is breaking here are these man-made stories from unbelievers who are bent on disproving God.