Question on if scientist would rather the universe be infinite or the Big Bang

[eklypised]

The atheist asked me what statistics scientists would rather the universe be infinite rather than the Big Bang happening. Wouldn’t you say that’s true since it throws a monkey wrench in with them now having explain the Big Bang instead of the universe being infinite?

[jayceeii]

I don’t think anyone is saying the universe is infinite, but that it might be expanding infinitely. This is different from the question of whether it started as a Big Bang or in some other way. Were the theists sincere, modern astronomy should be giving them cause to reflect about God’s immense power, particularly if the universe is expanding infinitely, but it has not worked this way. Humans remain very Earth-centric, the Christian cosmology stumbling along in the darkness the prophets left it in so long ago.

Were Christians to take a step forward, of which I believe them to be incapable, they should see that “God made the world in seven days” was a poetic way of expressing the power they can see now, through the findings of astronomy. In fact their idea that God can create worlds instantly has become extremely bizarre, after astronomy found the dust clouds which are the birthing areas of new solar systems. These gaps appear between science and Christianity since a) the prophets are denied, and b) the beliefs are not deep.

The idea of a Big Bang I think will be a monumental obstacle between human scientists and any new revelations from the prophets. They may have good news to share that God’s powers, as these are known, could in no way have arisen in a short fourteen billion years, arguing for a very ancient universe. This science has been the product and the property of the limited human mind, and its math might not connect with reality as they expect. If you think in the short-term about everything, the universe looks short-term too.

[Der Chemiker]

I don’t think anyone is saying the universe is infinite, but that it might be expanding infinitely.

There 3 possible szenarios how the existence of the universe could end:
1. Big Rip (the distance between the objects in the universe becomes to lange and the universe bursts like a bubble, this theory seems to be the most probable theory)
2. Big Crunch (where the universe shrinks, like an inversion of the expansion of the universe - maybe combined with a Big Bounce in an oscillating universe)
3. Big Freeze (combined with the heat death of the universe)

From the scientific perspecive, I think that 1 will happen before 3.
A short explanation for the heat death: the driving force for most physical and chemical processes is increasing the entropy in a closed system. The universe can be seen as a huge closed system and the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts an increase of entropy over the time. Entropy in general can be seen as statistical distribution of matter and energy. When you drive with petrol in your car, the petrol has lots of energy and the entire energy is located in a small area, in the tank. By burning petrol in the motor, you produce carbon dioxide and water steam and the number of molecules after the reaction increases, also the energy which was located in the tank before, is now distributed in the enviroment (as thermal energy).
Same happens with stars: they fuse hydrogen into helium and other heavier elements and they release energy by nuclear fusion. After nuclear fusion, the energy is spread more broad in the room. Sometime in the future, the energy and the particles are spread almost equal in the entire universe. If the energy is equal at any point in the universe, no nuclear fusions will happen and also no chemical reactions will happen, for some reasons.
And at this point in the universe, there is a stand still, a freeze (because no heat energy will wander from a point with high energy to a point with low energy any more), a heat death. The heat death is the logical consequence from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The problem with this szenario is, that the expansion of the universe makes the distance between particles larger, so it takes more time to exchange energy between some particles.

Calculations predict that the heat death of the universe will enter in 10^106 years (but you have also to consider proton decay before and during this time frame). But as I mentioned before, I think the decay of subatomic particles and the burst of the entire universe will happen before.
Craig mentions in his books that our universe - if it is a cyclic oscillating universe (scenario 2) - can be maximal in the 10th cycle, because of the increase of entropy (according to some scientists). So also a cyclic oscillating universe seems to have a beginning.

All in all, it is more plausible that the universe had a beginning instead of being infinite.

I gave you lots of scientic arguments to refute an invite universe, in a addition to that I want to give you 3 positive scientific arguments for the premise that the universe had a beginning:
1. Red-light-shift due to the Doppler effect, which shows that objects are moving away from us
2. Cosmic microwave background radiaton, the reason why the temperatur in space is 2 K above absolute zero (0 K)
3. The portion of helium in the universe (~10%) is much bigger than you would expect by nuclear fusion in the stars, the only reasonable explanation for this is nuclear fusion in an early stage of the universe, where the universe was much smaller and much hotter

[jayceeii]

I don’t think anyone is saying the universe is infinite, but that it might be expanding infinitely.

There 3 possible szenarios how the existence of the universe could end:
1. Big Rip (the distance between the objects in the universe becomes to lange and the universe bursts like a bubble, this theory seems to be the most probable theory)
2. Big Crunch (where the universe shrinks, like an inversion of the expansion of the universe - maybe combined with a Big Bounce in an oscillating universe)
3. Big Freeze (combined with the heat death of the universe)

Your mind is trapped in a particular place, the question whether you can awaken to this or if you are already revealing your mental limits. If the latter, anger is the usual response to such challenges, as a mind is asked to move somewhere it inherently is unable to go. You’ve cobbled together some physical data from astronomy here, but I’d submit that a) your view is not so complete as I have seen from actual researchers in the field, and b) not you nor these researchers are understanding this science is still quite young, and the field may be changing, possibly radically, as centuries continues to pass. In general entities with a material worldview, make a material interpretation of any data. Those with a higher worldview might encounter the same data and make a different interpretation.

Many are the minds following the thinking you outline here, and one thing each of them that I have encountered is missing is what you might call a “deep heart,” which is to say a feeling of extreme anxiety or disquiet at contemplating the possibility of the universe disappearing. From your text it appears you have absolutely no such feeling, and thus stand with the materialists scoffing at God or anyone who cares. Yet you would have to find some other way to convince me you are a profound and not a shallow person, than masses of complex text that a computer program might have generated. The point is that if God has made a soul, this soul is either self-aware or not self-aware. It is only souls who are not self-aware that can write coldly about universal death. Souls which have self-awareness are also aware of their eternal existence, and they know they need a universe.