The Big Bang Theory Does Not Require A Singularity At T=0

"Paradigm's other philosophical quarrel with an infinite universe is that he feels it is entirely bereft of explanation as to why it should be timeless. I fail to see how the Big Bang model does anything better. Why, for instance, would a universe have, at some arbitrary point, come into being bereft of all natural law? And where and when would it, or could it, have come from, seeing as space and time did not exist prior to it? " Believe me when I say that I am well aware with the philosophical problems of the Big Bang, most notably, the First Cause problem. But I did not want to derail your debate by introducing metaphysical questions about the supernatural. Stephen Hawking is probably the most renowned living scientist today. As well, he is a recipient of the distinguished Nobel Prize by formulating some brilliant theories concerning vacuum fluctuation and black hole research. Though he is a highly intelligent man with some hard won credentials in the field of quantum mechanics, even he cannot tell you why 0 + 0 should equal everything. He nimbly avoids such problems of Planck's time by simply stating, "What's north of the north pole? " In essence, he is implying that anything before the singularity is inconsequential. Is that really the case? I think to state with a straight face that something comes from nothing is scientific heresy, but hey, that's just me. In his defense, however, I agree that quantum indeterminacy is a given because no one was there to view it. We cannot know with Newtonian precision what happened prior, to Planck's time. My issue, however, is not that we cannot know definitively what happened. My issue is that to disregard it and view it as unimportant is extremely neglectful. Why do you suppose this aversion occurs in the minds of the great scientific minds? My guess is that they have to consider the possibility of a Creator. This idea makes for some very uncomfortable scientists who shudder at the very thought of something greater than the mind of a human being. Sir Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's General theory of Relativity, stated, "philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me. .. I should like to find a general loophole. " Einstein's' reactions to his own theory appeared to acknowledge a threat of an encounter with a higher power. Even still, Einstein very begrudgingly accepted the notion, to which he called, "the necessity for a beginning. " The message I am trying to convey is that many great minds have come to similar conclusions based solely on the inferences of science. I think it would be well with us to follow suit in similar fashion even if we drag our feet the entire way. What is this repugnance to a singularity? I honestly believe that it is a fear of coming to grips with the First Cause. But even if we knew there had to be a First Cause, we still would not know empirically what the First Cause was or how to define it. If there is something like a God, I am confident that it is something we are not supposed to be able to prove empirically. If there is a God, it would not surprise me that just such an entity, if we could even call it that, would intentionally remain elusive to allow for some profound personal insight. But now I seriously digress and am wasting precious bandwidth! Humor me by reading over these questions, and it will show you that an actual infinite, including timeless time, is not possible in the physical realm, which will inexorably bring you back to the fact that time had a beginning: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite. 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. 2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. 2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. 2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. 2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. 2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. If you can add or subtract to anything, then it isn't an actual infinite. You can't have infinity + 1 or 2 or 3, right? And because you and I were born, there is not an infinite amount of people. It's important to distinguish between an actual infinite from a potential infinite. An actual infinite is a collection of things having a proper subset which has the same number of members as the original collection itself. In contrast, an actual infinite is not like a potential infinite, which is a collection of every point in time finite, but is growing toward infinity as a limit. In other words, a potential infinite can exist, but an actual infinite as it applies to time/space/matter/energy does not exist. On the philosophical level, time had a beginning, and it conceivably will have an end. "Leaving philosophy and entering the empirical realm the first claim is (and this one is common) that an infinite universe violates the Second Law. The solution provided by a cyclic universe is a very subtle one (I had to do quite a bit of delving into arxiv. org to pick up on it, and I will be the first to admit I do not fully understand it. ) However, in it's known formulation, it is stated that the Second Law reads "entropy can only increase in a closed system, reaching some maximum value. " The assumption made in most arguments against a cyclic universe is that our universe is a closed system. This is circumnavigated by the use of branes (which I will admit I am not very fond of) and dark energy, which does have observational backing. " Well, think of it this way: The belief that order comes from disorder is falsifiable to the highest degree. This belief defies the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, more commonly known as entropy. Entropy is expressed that all things, when left to themselves, tend to degrade. When left to its own device all matter tends toward disorder. To further illustrate, there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, including oscillating galaxies. Any physical process that begins cannot complete its course with as much useful energy as when it first derived. Moreover, energy cannot increase either, because it would defy the 1st Law. This is in direct polarity with the chaos theory. By all rights, the Second Law is immutable. It is a constant of physics, proving the scientific axiom undeniably. The results are testable, observable, and predictable -- all the markings of scientific truism. To counter this contradiction, the adherents of such false science excuse entropy, stating that it only occurs in a closed system. They cite, that earth is an open system, meaning the earth receives its energy from the sun. The problem to overcome for these naysayers, however, remains the same. Even with our abundant source of solar energy, all things still tend towards disorder and decay. Organisms age and will die; buildings age, dilapidate and disintegrate. This is played out all throughout nature. What then, should this phenomena before referred to, if not entropy? No matter if we call it an apple or an orange, its evidence is overwhelming. Clearly, it is a natural law that everything adheres to. In closing, it appears that you have not really answered many of my objections that, really, are the same objections by many physicists. There is no good reason to assume that timeless time (a tautology and a contradiction) should ever be the way things actually are. Time had a beginning.