That is correct tommy. I think sometimes Christians jump the gun a bit. A beginning to our universe does not mean a beginning, and Christians will often retort back that it is irrational or mere speculation to assume there is anything before our "universe" especially since it can't be scientifically tested. Another is that those who follow multiple universe theories disregard Occam's razor by introducing infinitely vast complexities to explain just one universe (ours). I think these are very good argument against those who take a multiple universe way out. However, there is still the possibility multiple universes could be the case, so I guess many who proclaim themselves Atheists are content with this "way out" even if there is no observing these "other universes".tommyboy605182 wrote:yes, i understand the big bang theory. the problem is that the big bang theory proves that OUR universe had a beginning, it does not prove an absolute beginning. well, for me it does, but for a stubborn atheist who refuses to "let a divine foot in the door," it doesn't; there could have been millions of universes before ours came into being, or perhaps a multiverse. what im trying to show this guy on facebook is that infinity simply does not exist within our universe. ever since hubble's discovery of the expanding universe, scientists have been trying to find a way around the "creation event," a way to somehow show that the universe did not have an absolute beginning.KrisW wrote:Yes...it's called the Big Bang Theory, which says the Universe came into being at a past time via an 'external causal agent'.tommyboy605182 wrote:
my question is, is there any true PROOF against an ageless universe?
The 2K background radiation predicted by the Big Bang Theory was confirmed in the early 1990's.
A more sophisticated argument can be made however. For example, each universe within an infinite universe theory requires something. They require physical laws by which they work and run. As the Naturalist philosopher Paul Davies noted in his book The Mind of God: "Plausible world-ensemble theories still require a measure of explanation, such as the law-like character of the universes and why there exists a world-ensemble in the first place." Davies here raises two dilemmas for those who opt for multiple universe theories. The first is that such theories fail to explain how the many-universe possibilities could have existed in the first place. And second, while an infinite universe theory may provide a selection of different alternative universes, such theories cannot explain the laws by which they run that are responsible for producing an infinite amount of universes.
Some like Lee Smolin postulate theories that allow for small variations in the actual physical laws of new universes, however the laws linking such universes together can not be explained. Thus, I think not only is it grasping for straws to postulate multiple universe theories, but even if one allows them into their beliefs they still end up at dead end explanations. To me it is 1) much simpler, 2) more consistent, 3) has greater explanatory power, and 4) more obvious based on our own experiences in the world we live to infer that laws are put in place by an intelligent law-maker and as such the laws by which our universe works.