“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.” — Job 38:4

“Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out” – Isaiah 42:5

Before we even explore scientific theories, it is striking that Scripture has spoken for millennia of a God who “stretches out the heavens” (Isa. 40:22; 42:5; 44:24). Long before modern cosmology, the biblical authors described a universe with a definitive beginning—a cosmos that is not eternal, but brought into existence by the command of God. Science and Scripture are not enemies here; they are both pointing us toward the unavoidable question of origins.

Few questions stir both scientific and spiritual imagination more than this: What existed before the Big Bang?

The moment modern cosmology demonstrated that the universe had a beginning, the conversation shifted from purely scientific description to profound metaphysical inquiry. A universe with a beginning demands an explanation. And despite decades of attempts to construct models that avoid a cosmic starting point, the evidence increasingly points in a direction that aligns strikingly with Scripture’s ancient claim: the universe is not eternal, and God stands before it. Even early champions of scientific naturalism felt the weight of this implication. Sir Fred Hoyle mocked the idea of a beginning by coining the term “Big Bang” in derision precisely because it sounded too much like Genesis. Yet even he eventually conceded the overwhelming evidence for a cosmic beginning. And the pattern continues today: many skeptics still resist the Standard Cosmological Model (i.e. The Big Bang), invoking hypothetical infinities, eternal universes, or multiverses—not because the data requires them, but because the theological implications are unavoidable.

This blog explores what both science and Scripture say about the question of “before the beginning,” why alternative explanations collapse under scrutiny, and why this is one of the most powerful apologetic openings for Christian theology today.

What the Big Bang Actually Means

Popular imagination often reduces the Big Bang to “an explosion.”
It was nothing of the sort. The Big Bang was the origin of space itself, the origin of time, and the origin of all physical reality—energy, matter, the laws of physics, and the spacetime fabric. Stephen Hawking described it bluntly:

“Time itself had a beginning… and so did the universe.”¹

A simple illustration may help: picture a box. Everything inside the box—space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, particles, and the laws governing them—represents our entire universe. The Big Bang was not an explosion inside the box. It was the moment the box itself came into existence. Before this event, there was no box, no space for it to sit in, no time ticking outside it, and no physical reality beyond it. The universe and its container came into being together.

Modern cosmology rests on four pillars:

• Cosmic expansion (Hubble, 1929)
• Cosmic microwave background radiation (Penzias & Wilson, 1965)
• Abundances of light elements
• General relativity, which mathematically implies a past boundary

This cumulative evidence has led virtually all mainstream cosmologists to affirm that the universe is finite in the past. Which naturally leads to the unsettling question: What came before it?

Modern cosmology confirms two essential points. First, the Big Bang is the origin of space, time, matter, and energy—not an explosion inside existing space. Second, physics reaches its mathematical limit when we try to describe the first fraction of a second of the universe’s existence. General Relativity is extraordinarily powerful, but it breaks down at the singularity. This tells us not that nothing happened “before,” but that physics as we know it cannot describe that region.

The Limits of Physics at the Beginning

Physicists readily acknowledge that our equations “break down” at the Big Bang. But this does not imply that nothing existed “before” the beginning—only that physics cannot currently describe that domain. We encounter a critical distinction:

• The Big Bang is the beginning of space and time.
• Therefore, “before” refers to something outside physical time as we know it.

Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize–winning mathematical physicist, writes:

“We are forced to consider something outside the present laws of physics to account for the initial singularity.”²

Physics cannot reach “behind” the boundary. But mathematics does place constraints on what can exist beyond it—and those constraints are profound. This leads us to one of the most important discoveries in the modern scientific study of cosmic origins: the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin (BGV) theorem.

It is important to note that the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem does not tell us what the boundary is—only that our expanding universe cannot be extended infinitely into the past and must reach some kind of beginning. In other words, the universe’s expansion cannot be extended indefinitely into the past. Any universe that has, on average, been expanding must be past-finite. This applies to inflationary models, multiverse scenarios, and nearly every cosmological model currently taken seriously.

The BGV Theorem: Why a Beginning Is Unavoidable

In 2003, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved a theorem applying to any universe (or multiverse) that has, on average, a positive expansion rate:

Any universe that has been expanding throughout its history cannot be extended eternally into the past.³

This applies to:

• classical Big Bang models
• inflationary models
• eternal inflation
• bouncing cosmologies
• most string-theory–inspired universes
• multiverse scenarios

Alexander Vilenkin summarized the conclusion unambiguously:

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”⁴

This is not the argument of theologians but of the physicists themselves. However, the clarity of this statement has sometimes been misapplied, not by scientists, but by popular-level interpreters. It is here that we must understand what Vilenkin actually meant.

It is important to note that the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem does not tell us what the boundary is—it simply shows that a boundary exists. In other words, the universe’s expansion cannot be extended indefinitely into the past. Any universe that has, on average, been expanding must be past-finite. This applies to inflationary models, multiverse scenarios, and nearly every cosmological model currently taken seriously.

Clarifying Vilenkin: The “Loophole” That Isn’t

When Vilenkin once commented that one might “evade the theorem by postulating a contracting phase,” he was not endorsing a past-eternal cosmos.
He was simply noting that the BGV theorem, taken in isolation, proves the beginning of expansion but cannot by itself describe the physics of any hypothetical pre-expansion epoch.⁵

This was a logical loophole—not a physical one.

In his published scientific work, Vilenkin strongly emphasizes that known contracting-phase models do not escape a beginning. They run into:

• instabilities,
• entropy buildup,
• collapse singularities,
• quantum breakdowns, and
• incomplete geodesics.

This is exactly why he repeatedly states:

• all the evidence points to a beginning,
• cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe, and
• inflation itself cannot be past eternal.⁶

Even when Vilenkin says his theorem alone does not “prove” a beginning, this is only in the narrow mathematical sense that BGV does not describe the precise physics at the boundary. But his broader scientific conclusion is unmistakable: every attempt to avoid a beginning collapses.

This includes all “prior state” ideas—quantum vacua, emergent phases, eternal inflation, and bounce models. And this leads to a deeper philosophical and scientific point.

Any Pre–Big Bang State Cannot Be Infinite

If the universe cannot be past eternal, neither can any proposed pre-Big Bang epoch. The same problems apply:

1. It would require traversing an actual infinite.

To reach the Big Bang, an infinite number of prior events would have to be crossed. This is impossible—no different from trying to complete infinitely many steps before taking the first step. Imagine a line of dominoes stretching backward without end. For the final domino (the Big Bang) to fall, every domino before it must have fallen first. But if the line is truly infinite, you would never reach a first domino to start the chain at all. The last domino could never fall. In fact, with an infinite number of dominoes, you could never even arrive at a starting point—there would always be another domino before the one you need to tip. An actual infinite past collapses for the same reason.

And this is true of any physical sequence. Every physical thing—matter, energy, space, time, and the laws governing them—came into existence at the Big Bang. So to claim an infinite chain of physical events before the Big Bang is to claim physical things existed prior to the origin of all physical things. This is a logical contradiction. One would first have to prove that physical events occurred before anything physical existed, which collapses under its own weight.

2. Entropy would already be maximized.

Any infinite-duration prior state would be in thermal equilibrium.
No low-entropy Big Bang could follow.

To see why, imagine something far simpler than the cosmos: a cup of hot coffee placed in a room. At first, the coffee is much hotter than the surrounding air—a classic low-entropy condition, full of usable energy. But if you let that cup sit for a long time, the heat gradually disperses until the coffee and the room reach the same temperature. Now stretch that time out not for minutes, hours, or years, but for an infinite duration. Every temperature difference, every gradient, every pocket of usable energy would vanish. The entire system would become perfectly uniform—thermal equilibrium—and it would stay that way forever.

Now here is the key: in such a system, you could never suddenly get a fresh cup of hot coffee again. The low-entropy beginning required to make the coffee hot would be impossible. This is precisely the problem for any universe that has existed for an infinite past. If the cosmos had truly existed forever, all energy gradients would have already evened out infinitely long ago. Stars would not form. Galaxies would not exist. No structure, no motion, no usable energy—and certainly no sudden, extremely low-entropy event like the Big Bang—could ever occur.

The Big Bang represents the single most ordered, low-entropy state we know of in the history of the universe. But an infinite past would guarantee that equilibrium had already been reached long before such an event could occur. In other words, you cannot get a fresh, low-entropy beginning out of an infinitely old, equilibrium state. The physics simply will not allow it.

This forms one of the most decisive arguments against an eternal universe:
A low-entropy Big Bang is evidence that the past is not infinite—it had a beginning.

3. Quantum tunneling does not escape a beginning.

The widely misunderstood “quantum creation from nothing” models do not begin with nothing. They begin with:

• a quantum vacuum,
• governed by physical laws,
• described by mathematical structure.

This is not “nothing.”⁷

Moreover, vacuum fluctuation models still require:

• a prior spacetime manifold or
• a pre-geometric quantum state.

Neither can be eternal without the same problems of entropy and infinite regress.

Imagine a person suddenly appearing in a locked room by slipping through the wall—a strange but possible quantum tunneling analogy. Even if such an entrance bypasses the door, it still requires a room, walls, space, time, and physical laws already in place for the event to occur. Tunneling never takes place in a literal “nothing”; it only occurs within an existing physical environment governed by quantum fields. In the same way, quantum tunneling cannot explain the origin of the universe itself. It may describe how something moves within a universe, but it cannot account for how the universe—and the quantum fields required for tunneling—came into existence. You cannot tunnel into a room that does not yet exist.

4. Singularity-avoidance models do not allow infinite pasts.

Loop quantum cosmology (LQC) bounces do not extend infinitely backward; the bounce replaces the singularity, but the past is finite.⁸

Think of a car driving along a road that suddenly ends at a massive rock wall. In classical cosmology, that rock wall represents the singularity—the point where the laws of physics break down. Loop quantum cosmology proposes something different: instead of hitting the wall, the car reaches a point where the road curves sharply upward and loops back, allowing the car to continue by turning around. This “bounce” replaces the singularity. But notice something crucial: even though the car avoids crashing into the wall, the road behind it still has a starting point. The loop does not stretch infinitely backward. There is no endlessly long road behind the driver—just a finite stretch leading to the bounce.

In the same way, LQC does not give you an infinite past; it gives you a finite universe that contracts to a minimum volume and then expands again. The bounce is a replacement for the singularity—not a doorway to an eternal past. Just as the car cannot claim an infinitely long journey simply because it turned around at the end of a finite road, the universe cannot claim an infinite past simply because its collapse was followed by a rebound. The bounce still occurs after a finite amount of cosmic history, which means the past is not eternal. The cosmological clock does not run back forever; it reaches a boundary, even if that boundary is smooth rather than sharp.

Even if one imagines a universe with multiple bounces, modern physics has decisively shown that an infinite series of bounces is impossible. Each cycle would accumulate entropy, and after even a modest number of cycles the universe would reach thermodynamic equilibrium, leaving no energy differences to fuel a fresh, low-entropy beginning like the one we observe. The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem reinforces this by showing that any universe with an average expansion—cyclic models included—cannot be extended infinitely into the past. And loop quantum cosmology itself allows for only a single bounce, not an eternal chain. At most, physics permits a limited number of compressions and expansions, but never an infinite regress. In every viable model, the past remains finite and the universe still requires a beginning.

5. Hartle–Hawking “no-boundary” proposals still have a finite past.

The Hartle–Hawking “no-boundary” proposal is often misunderstood by skeptics who invoke it as if it eliminates the beginning of the universe. It does not. Their model replaces the classical singularity—the sharp boundary where general relativity breaks down—with a smooth, rounded, Euclidean region. In this regime, time behaves more like a spatial dimension, so instead of a hard edge, the geometry gently curves off, like the surface near the South Pole of the Earth. But crucially, this does not mean the universe extends infinitely into the past. A smooth boundary is still a boundary in the sense that the geometry is finite in extent. The universe still has a “beginning,” just one without a sharp edge. 

Picture a globe. If you trace your finger downward toward the South Pole, you eventually reach a point where the lines of longitude meet. But at the South Pole itself, there is no jagged edge or cliff—it is a smooth, rounded surface. The pole is still a boundary, but not a boundary with a wall; instead, it is simply the furthest point in that direction. The Hartle–Hawking model functions the same way: the universe does not begin with a violent boundary but with a smooth, rounded transition—yet the past does not extend beyond that point. There is no “earlier” than the Euclidean regime, just as there is no “south” of the South Pole.Even Stephen Hawking and James Hartle acknowledged this. Their proposal removes the singularity, not the beginning. It replaces a hard start with a mathematical smoothing, but the total extent of the past remains finite. Just as the Earth’s surface is finite even though it lacks edges, the Hartle–Hawking universe is finite even though it lacks a sharp temporal boundary. There is no infinite regression of time or events hiding behind the Euclidean region; the model simply softens the start of time’s arrow.Furthermore, once the universe emerges from this Euclidean phase into the classical, time-directed expansion we observe today, the thermodynamic arrow of time begins. Entropy increases. Structure forms. The cosmos evolves. None of this could proceed from an infinite past within the Hartle–Hawking framework because the model does not allow a past that stretches beyond the smoothing region. The past remains bounded, just not by a singularity.

In short, the Hartle–Hawking proposal is not an eternal universe. It is a finite universe with a beginning that is mathematically smooth rather than abrupt. The model softens the boundary, but it does not erase it. The universe still requires an origin—one that aligns strikingly well with the biblical and philosophical concept of a finite beginning.⁹

6. Emergent universe models fail under instability analysis.

Emergent universe models were proposed in an attempt to avoid a cosmic beginning by claiming the universe existed in a quiet, stable, eternal past phase—something like a calm, unchanging “pre-universe” that eventually transitions into expansion. At first glance, this seems promising for those who want to escape a beginning. But the problem is that these models do not survive instability analysis. George Ellis, Roy Maartens, and others showed that even the smallest perturbations—tiny fluctuations in density, pressure, or curvature—would cause the supposed eternal phase to collapse or evolve. In other words, the “eternal” state cannot actually remain eternal. It is too fragile to last forever.

Imagine placing a pencil upright on its tip. In theory, if the pencil were perfectly balanced, it could stand that way forever. But in reality, the tiniest vibration—the hum of a refrigerator, a breath of air, a microscopic shift in the desk—will send the pencil toppling. The pencil’s upright position is a theoretical equilibrium, not a stable one. It cannot persist in the real world. Emergent universe models rely on the cosmos balancing in exactly this kind of precarious position. The “eternal past phase” is like the pencil on its tip: mathematically possible, but physically impossible to maintain. Even the slightest disturbance would either cause the universe to begin expanding immediately or collapse in on itself. It cannot sit unchanged for an infinite amount of time.

Ellis and Maartens demonstrated that the emergent phase is not merely unstable—it is catastrophically unstable. Quantum fluctuations, thermal noise, gravitational perturbations, or even tiny variations in curvature would inevitably break the equilibrium and force the universe into motion. This means the universe could not have remained in this “eternal” state for infinite time. The emergent phase could last for a while, but not forever. It has a shelf life.

Moreover, instability means there is no past eternal state to stretch backward infinitely. If the model contains an unstable equilibrium, then the only physically meaningful timeline is one that begins at the point where the instability is triggered and the universe starts evolving. The supposed infinite past dissolves under analysis, leaving a finite past that begins at the onset of cosmic expansion. In other words, even emergent models—designed to avoid a beginning—end up reintroducing one.

Thus, despite their philosophical appeal, emergent universe proposals cannot escape the same conclusion we see across all modern cosmology:
the universe cannot be past eternal. Every viable model still requires a finite past and therefore a beginning.¹⁰

7. Carroll–Chen’s “eternal universe” requires conditions that violate known physics.

The Carroll–Chen model is one of the most frequently cited attempts to claim an “eternal universe.” Their idea imagines a large, timeless background state from which baby universes—like ours—sprout due to quantum fluctuations. On the surface, this looks like a clever way to avoid a cosmic beginning: instead of one universe with a single origin, you get a branching tree of universes extending without end. But there is a problem—it doesn’t work under known physics, and even Sean Carroll has openly acknowledged the gaps.¹¹ The model requires conditions, particles, and processes that are not only unobserved but also forbidden by the physics we do know. In short, the model asks for a universe that behaves in ways that our universe demonstrably cannot.

Let’s say someone claims that the way to avoid the question of “Who built your house?” is to say that houses just naturally appear from a sea of endlessly growing lumber. But for that to work, you would need a magical forest where the trees never decay, never break down, never run out of room, and somehow spontaneously assemble themselves into new houses. The explanation doesn’t escape the need for a builder—it simply moves the fine-tuning and impossibilities into the background. Carroll–Chen functions exactly like that: to avoid a beginning, they place the burden of impossible physics onto a hypothetical background state. But that background would require infinite entropy (contradiction), infinitely sized space (contradiction), quantum fields without boundaries (contradiction), and time behaving in ways that violate general relativity and thermodynamics. In other words, to save their eternal universe, the laws of physics must be suspended.

Worse still, Carroll himself has admitted that the model is speculative and not grounded in an actual physical mechanism. It assumes that entropy can decrease in one direction (to form universes like ours) while increasing in another, even though no physical process supports such behavior. And crucially, even if one accepted the impossible physics needed for the background universe, the expansion of our universe still has a beginning. Every observable cosmological feature—including the low-entropy Big Bang—points to a finite past. But the deeper problem is that even the supposed “prior state” out of which universes emerge would also require a beginning. A timeless background cannot fluctuate, because fluctuations require time, energy, and physical fields—all of which must be in place and finely tuned.

Carroll and Chen attempted to create a model where “beginnings” could be avoided, but the more closely one inspects the proposal, the more beginnings one finds. The emergence of universes requires conditions that themselves require a beginning. The entropy problem forces a beginning. The need for a low-entropy environment forces a beginning. And the mathematical analyses of cosmology keep returning us to the same conclusion:

Physics does not avoid a beginning—physics keeps arriving at one.

Across every credible model—classical or quantum, bouncing or emergent, inflating or cyclic—the universe refuses to be past eternal. The beginning is not something we add for theological convenience; it is something physics itself demands.

Why a Past-Eternal Universe Fails—Scientifically and Philosophically

Even apart from the BGV theorem, several other lines of reasoning collapse the concept of a universe with no beginning.

A. You Cannot Traverse an Infinite Past

For the present moment to arrive, every prior event must have been completed.
But if the past contains an actually infinite number of events, the present could never occur.

Imagine a library whose opening day depends on receiving a shipment of books. But the shipment can only be delivered after completing an infinite number of prior deliveries. Delivery #1 happens after Delivery #2, which happens after Delivery #3, and so on forever—no first delivery, no starting truck, no beginning to the chain.

The library would never open. Why? Because the required tasks stretch backward infinitely with no first task to begin the sequence.

That is what an infinite past would imply: a universe waiting forever for conditions to be fulfilled, yet never reaching the point where the Big Bang could occur.

But the universe did begin.
The “library” opened.
The shipment arrived.

Therefore, the chain of events leading to the Big Bang cannot be infinite. A past-eternal universe is not just scientifically untenable—it is philosophically impossible.

Philosopher Alexander Pruss explains:

“One cannot form an actual infinite by successive addition.”¹²

Another scientific problem for a past-eternal universe comes from thermodynamics. If the universe had been expanding and evolving for an infinite amount of time, all usable energy would have long since dissipated. The cosmos would be in a state of heat death—cold, dark, and lifeless. Yet we observe a universe full of structure, energy, motion, and information. This strongly indicates that the universe has not existed forever but began in a low-entropy state a finite time ago. The fact that we still observe abundant usable energy means the universe has not been running forever.

This applies not only to the universe as we know it, but to any hypothesized pre-Big Bang epoch.

B. Thermodynamics Forbids an Eternal Universe

Pretend a wind-up clock was sitting on a table. Each tick drains a tiny bit of the stored energy inside its spring. After enough time, the spring unwinds, the gears stop turning, and the clock goes silent. Now imagine that same clock has been ticking for an infinite amount of time. If that were the case, its spring would have run down infinitely long ago. There would be no energy left for the clock to tick even once today. But the universe is just like that clock: usable energy decreases over time. Stars burn fuel, galaxies radiate heat, systems move toward disorder. If the universe had existed eternally, it would have long since reached maximum entropy—a cold, uniform, lifeless state. The fact that stars still shine, galaxies still form, and energy gradients still exist shows that the cosmic “clock” has not been running forever. It was wound up a finite time ago.

If the universe—or any pre-universe state—were infinitely old:

• entropy would be maximized,
• stars would have burned out,
• galaxies would not exist,
• usable energy would be gone.

Yet our universe is in a low-entropy state. This alone implies finitude.

C. Eternal-Cycle Models Are Not Truly Eternal

Imagine a rubber ball that you drop repeatedly on the floor. Each bounce is slightly lower than the one before it because a small amount of energy is lost every time it hits the ground. Now picture someone claiming that this ball has been bouncing forever—an infinite number of times into the past. That cannot be true. If the ball had already bounced infinitely many times, all its energy would have been completely dissipated long ago. It would be lying motionless on the floor right now, unable to bounce even once more. Eternal-cycle universe models face the very same problem: with every cosmic “bounce,” entropy increases, usable energy decreases, and conditions become less favorable for producing the kind of ordered, low-entropy universe we inhabit. After even a modest number of cycles, the universe would be too disordered to reset. The fact that our universe is still full of structure, energy, and low-entropy conditions proves it has not been through an infinite number of past cycles. A ball that still bounces must have been dropped a finite time ago; a universe that still forms stars must have begun a finite time ago.

Some theorists have proposed bounce models or pre–Big Bang scenarios, but these remain speculative and unconfirmed. Even their creators acknowledge that these ideas are mathematically intriguing yet physically untested. And importantly, none of these proposals escape the need for a beginning—they merely shift the boundary, but do not remove it.

Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology fails because entropy cannot reset.¹³
Loop quantum gravity models fail due to geodesic incompleteness.¹⁴
Carroll–Chen fails due to unbounded entropy requirements.¹⁵

Aron Wall summarizes the field:

“No known theory of quantum gravity suggests that the universe is past-eternal.”¹⁶

The scientific consensus is clear:
The universe had a beginning.

If the Universe Began, What Caused It?

Any cause of the universe must be:

• Timeless, because time began with the universe.
• Spaceless, because space began with the universe.
• Immaterial, because material reality began with the universe.
• Powerful, capable of producing all physical reality.
• Transcendent, existing independently of creation.
• Personal, because an eternal, changeless cause cannot produce a temporal effect unless it makes a choice.

William Lane Craig argues:

“A timeless cause can only be personal, for only a personal agent can will a temporal effect without antecedent determining conditions.”¹⁷

Thus, the cause must be personal. This perfectly aligns with Scripture.

What Scripture Says About “Before the Beginning”

Scripture’s opening declaration is explosively profound:

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” — Genesis 1:1

This verse asserts:

1. Time began (“in the beginning”).¹⁸
2. God is eternal (“from everlasting to everlasting you are God”).¹⁹
3. God freely wills creation (“by Your will they existed and were created”).²⁰
4. Creation is ex nihilo (“what is seen was not made from things visible”).²¹

Colossians 1:17 teaches:

“He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

Science describes the boundary.
Scripture describes the One beyond it.

Before the Big Bang Was God

Science leads us to the boundary of creation.
Philosophy leads us through the doorway.
Scripture reveals the One who stands on the other side.

Before the Big Bang, there was no space.
No time.
No matter.
No physical form of energy.
No laws of nature.

But there was God—eternal, personal, and free—who chose to create.

A finite past immediately raises a deeper question: What caused the universe to begin? If space, time, matter, and physical energy came into existence at the Big Bang, then the cause of the universe must be outside space and time—something non-physical, timeless, and powerful enough to bring the entire cosmos into existence. This is exactly what Scripture teaches: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). The biblical description of a timeless Creator fits precisely the kind of cause required by a universe with a beginning.

Summary of the Argument (Syllogism)

I first introduced this syllogism in The Kalam Reimagined, and it applies equally to any proposed boundary before the Big Bang, because no such boundary can be past-eternal. Every physical state prior to the Big Bang is still finite and therefore cannot be the ultimate cause of the universe. So both physics and philosophy converge on the same point: the past cannot be infinite.

1. If the entire physical universe has a finite past, its cause must lie beyond the physical universe, since no part of a finite system can be the cause of the entire system.
2. The universe has a finite past.
3. Therefore, the cause of the universe must lie beyond the physical universe.
4. Only a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, rational Mind can cause a finite universe.
5. Therefore, a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, rational Mind exists.

Science can describe the expansion of the universe, but it cannot explain why there is a boundary at the beginning. Philosophy shows that an infinite past is impossible. Scripture reveals the identity of the One who stands beyond that boundary. Science cannot tell us why there is something rather than nothing—but Scripture gives a coherent answer: a timeless, spaceless, immaterial Creator who brings the universe into existence and sustains it. The evidence points not to an eternal universe, but to an eternal God.

---

ENDNOTES

1. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2010), 134.
2. Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (New York: Vintage Books, 2005), 753.
3. Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, “Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions,” Physical Review Letters 90, no. 15 (2003): 151301.
4. Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.
5. Alan Guth, “Eternal Inflation and its Implications,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 40, no. 25 (2007): 6811–26. See especially Vilenkin’s appendix discussion regarding logical vs. physical loopholes.
6. Alexander Vilenkin, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Inference: International Review of Science 3, no. 1 (2018). Also see Vilenkin’s public lecture at Tufts University, April 2012, where he stated: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
7. Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (New York: Free Press, 2012), 23–24. For a scientific critique, see David Albert, “On the Origin of Everything,” The New York Times, March 23, 2012.
8. Abhay Ashtekar, Tomasz Pawlowski, and Parampreet Singh, “Quantum Nature of the Big Bang,” Physical Review Letters 96, no. 14 (2006): 141301. Although LQC replaces the singularity with a bounce, the solutions remain geodesically incomplete, implying a finite past.
9. James B. Hartle and Stephen Hawking, “Wave Function of the Universe,” Physical Review D 28, no. 12 (1983): 2960–75. The no-boundary proposal replaces the classical boundary with a Euclidean regime of finite extent—it does not permit an eternal past.
10. G. F. R. Ellis and R. Maartens, “The Emergent Universe: Inflationary Cosmology with No Singularity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 21 (2004): 223–32. Later analyses show that these models are unstable under perturbation and not past eternal.
11. Sean Carroll and Jennifer Chen, “Spontaneous Inflation and the Origin of the Arrow of Time,” arXiv:hep-th/0410270 (2004). Carroll has acknowledged the speculative nature and instability of this model in multiple public lectures.
12. Alexander R. Pruss, Infinity, Causation, and Paradox (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 42.
13. Roger Penrose, Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011). Entropy growth across cycles prevents an infinitely old universe.
14. Carlo Rovelli, Quantum Gravity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Rovelli explains the geodesic incompleteness of loop quantum cosmology solutions in reverse-time extensions.
15. Sean Carroll, “Why (Almost All) Cosmologists Are Atheists,” lecture at Skepticon 2012. Carroll acknowledges the entropy problems involved in sustaining an eternal past.
16. Aron C. Wall, “The Generalized Second Law Implies a Quantum Singularity Theorem,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, no. 16 (2013): 165003. Wall provides a quantum-gravitational extension reinforcing a finite past.
17. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 152.
18. Genesis 1:1, ESV.
19. Psalm 90:2, ESV.
20. Revelation 4:11, ESV.
21. Hebrews 11:3, ESV.