Q&A: An Eternal Universe
An Eternal Universe
Question
Hello Rabbi,
You wrote that an attempt to evade the cosmological proof and the regress is to claim that the universe is eternal. But since we know there was a Big Bang, that is no longer relevant.
1) So they would simply shift the concept of an eternal universe to laws that are eternal, rather than to physical reality itself—some kind of prime matter. Does it really make a difference that there was a "Big Bang"?
2) Does the argument that the universe is eternal really solve the problem? Isn’t saying that the universe is eternal basically like saying it’s turtles all the way down? It doesn’t lead to the conclusion that there is no cause. It means that every time you ask me what the cause is, I’ll give you an answer ad infinitum. That’s the same regress too, no?
Answer
I addressed this in the principle of sufficient reason. Laws are also not entities, and therefore they are not the cause of anything. They describe the operation of causes.
Indeed, an eternal universe seems to me to be a problematic claim. I addressed that as well.