The universe had a beginning

The short version

1. Our universe was hot and dense about 13.8 billion years ago.

   Three independent lines show it: the expansion, the microwave background, and the amounts of helium and deuterium, which match a prediction whose one free number is set by a different measurement.

   The evidence ↓
2. A theorem says expansion cannot run back forever.

   A history that keeps expanding on average cannot be extended forever into the past. That our own history therefore has a first state is a strong but unproven inference, with named exceptions; no model that avoids it has support.

   The evidence ↓
3. Physics does not yet reach the first moment.

   The theorems are classical, and quantum gravity is unknown. Two authors of the same theorem disagree: one says the universe "probably did" begin; the other, as a colleague reports his view, that it is "very likely eternal".

   The evidence ↓
4. A first state needs an explanation that is not an earlier state.

   Given a principle of sufficient reason, which physics cannot supply, it is necessary or explained by a law of the initial state, a necessary fact, or something beyond physics. That narrows naturalism's options; it does not refute it.

   The evidence ↓
5. So it counts, but modestly.

   A beginning fits a Creator better than it fits naturalism, by a likelihood ratio of about 1.3. That ratio can never exceed the physics' own support for a beginning, so this line cannot be a proof.

   The evidence ↓

The question

Does physical reality, all of it, including anything that came "before" the hot Big Bang, have a finite past? And if it does, how much does that fact tell us about whether there is a Creator?

Three different claims hide under "the universe had a beginning". Most popular arguments, on both sides, slide between them. We keep them apart, and the whole page hangs on this ladder.

Only L3 is scored as evidence. L1 is as secure as anything in cosmology, but it does not discriminate: nearly every naturalistic cosmology also puts a hot Big Bang in our past, as a local event inside something larger or older. L2b is not L3. Some models that are eternal in time still have a first state in the order of explanation (a moment of lowest entropy from which time's arrow runs both ways), and a past that ends at a singularity is finite in time but has no first state.

The hypotheses.

• H, biblical theism. A transcendent God created "the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1), and "all things were made through him" (John 1:3). H strongly expects an absolute beginning. One caveat from inside the tradition: Thomas Aquinas held that a beginning is known by faith, not by demonstration, because God could have created an eternal world.¹ So generic theism expects a beginning less strongly than the Bible does.
• N1, naturalism with an eternal past. A steady state, eternal inflation, a cyclic or bouncing cosmos, an eternal static seed, or a timeless quantum state that evolves forever.
• N2, naturalism with an uncaused beginning. Reality has a first state or a boundary of time, and nothing caused it: Vilenkin's tunnelling "from nothing", the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary state, or the view that "the universe simply is".

Rules of evidence

We fixed these before scoring anything.

1. Only an absolute beginning (L3) counts. The hot Big Bang (L1) is not scored by itself. The theorems (L2) count only through what they say about L3.
2. Calibrate on working cosmologists, from both sides. How far the data push toward L3 is judged against what the theorem's own authors conclude (Vilenkin and Guth disagree), not against apologetics summaries.
3. Theorems are scored by their assumptions. A theorem about classical spacetime cannot settle the quantum era. A theorem about models is not a fact about our universe: the step from one to the other is graded separately, with its exceptions. We report the authors' reading and their published critics.
4. Quotations only from sources we opened. Widely circulated quotes we could not trace are listed under What we don't claim, not used.
5. The whole null space is on the table. Every serious past-eternal and "from nothing" proposal is listed with its status, including the live ones. So are the facts that cut against the argument: the lithium problem, the classical scope of the theorem, the split among its authors, and the Kalam's need for a premise physics cannot supply.
6. No double counting. The extraordinarily low entropy of the early universe is a fine-tuning fact and is discussed on the fine-tuning page, where it is deliberately left out of the ratio. Whether Genesis "predicted" a beginning is scored on the Genesis 1 page; here it appears only as history. The philosophical argument that an actual infinite is impossible is stated but given no weight, because it would double-count the causal intuition already inside the model.
7. Two stages. The model separates how strongly the data favour an absolute beginning from how strongly each hypothesis predicts one. This stops the certainty of L1 from standing in for the uncertainty of L3.

The evidence

1. The hot Big Bang (L1): established

Galaxies recede faster the farther away they are, as Lemaître and Hubble found in 1927 and 1929.² The Planck satellite puts today's expansion rate at 67.4 ± 0.5 km/s per megaparsec; nearby distance-ladder measurements give a higher value, the unresolved "Hubble tension". That is a dispute about the rate, not about the expansion.³

The sky glows with microwaves at 2.72548 ± 0.00057 K, with the spectrum of a near-perfect blackbody: the cooled light of a time when the universe was hot and opaque.^4,5 The pattern of ripples in that light fits, in Planck's words, "the standard spatially-flat 6-parameter ΛCDM cosmology", and gives an age of about 13.8 billion years.³

The strongest single test is the light elements. A hot Big Bang cooks hydrogen into helium and deuterium in its first minutes, and the amounts depend on one number, the density of ordinary matter. The microwave background fixes that number independently. With nothing left to adjust, the predictions land within half a standard deviation of what is observed.^6,7

Lithium is the honest exception. Observed lithium-7 is about three times lower than predicted, a gap of about 4 standard deviations. The authors of the standard analysis say plainly that "the lithium problem remains".⁶ Whether the cause is in the stars that were measured, in nuclear physics or in new physics is open. It does not threaten L1, but a fair page has to show it.

The second law: an old argument, rightly limited

Entropy (roughly, disorder) rises over time. So the past had less of it. A simple closed universe that had existed forever should long ago have run down to equilibrium. Vilenkin uses this against the old cyclic models: "If the universe had already completed an infinite number of cycles, it would have reached a state of thermal equilibrium".¹³ Ours has not: its entropy today, about 3.1×10¹⁰⁴ in natural units, is far below the 2.6×10¹²² its horizon could hold.¹¹

But the argument has a limit. It defeats the naive eternal universe, not every eternal one. Carroll and Chen propose a model in which "inflation can increase the total entropy of the universe without bound", so there is no maximum to run down to.¹⁴ That model is speculative, but it shows the second law alone does not force a beginning.

microwave-background photons        2.0 x 10^89
everything today (mostly black holes)   3.1 x 10^104
cosmic event horizon (the maximum)   2.6 x 10^122

How rare is a state like the early one, compared with the maximum?
exp(S_early - S_max)  ~  10^(-1.1 x 10^122)
i.e. about 1 in 10^(10^122)

With a cosmological constant (our universe), the most one horizon
patch can hold is the de Sitter horizon entropy, about 3.3 x 10^122.
On a measure that counts every state of the patch equally:
  a state like the early one   ~ 10^(-1.44 x 10^122)
  today's matter-only state    ~ 10^(-1.44 x 10^122)   (the same)
Penrose's black hole of all the matter in the observable universe:
  1.5 times wider than the horizon, so it does not fit.

2. The theorems (L2): what they prove and what they don't

In 1965–70 Penrose and Hawking proved that, under general relativity and an energy condition (roughly, that gravity always attracts), spacetime cannot be extended indefinitely into the past.¹⁸ Hawking himself later argued that quantum effects remove the singularity.¹⁹

In 2003 Borde, Guth and Vilenkin (BGV) proved something with far fewer assumptions: "a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating – or just expanding sufficiently fast – must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions".²⁰ In Vilenkin's words, "It makes no assumptions about gravity or matter."¹³ "Incomplete" means that the paths of light and of observers, traced back, run out after a finite time.

In 2024 Garcia-Saenz, Hua and Zhao closed a loophole critics had found and proved a companion result: for uniform universes, "geodesic completeness implies (i) the existence of a bounce, loitering phase or an emergent cosmology". Their results "are purely kinematic and do not assume general relativity or energy conditions".²¹ Later work extends the theorem to Penrose's cyclic cosmology and to the 2019 cyclic model, both of which come out incomplete.^22,23

That is weaker than "time began". It says where a description of that kind must fail. It does not say what lies there, and it does not by itself say that our universe is such a history: "it has expanded on average over its whole past" is a property of a model of the whole past, not something a telescope sees. (De Sitter space, the simplest inflating universe, is incomplete in one standard set of coordinates and complete in another.) Carroll's objection is exact: "the BGV theorem assumes a classical spacetime, so it says nothing definitive about what actually happens in the universe".²⁴

integral of H d(lambda)  =  integral of (a-dot / a_now) dt
                         =  (a_now - a_then) / a_now
                         =  1 - a_then / a_now   <  1

3. The attempts to avoid a beginning

If the universe is eternal after all, there should be a model that shows how. Many have been proposed. Here is the fair state of play.

• Refuted or abandoned: Einstein's static universe (unstable, then contradicted by expansion), the Hoyle–Bondi–Gold steady state (refuted by radio-source counts, the microwave background and helium), the old oscillating universe (entropy grows each cycle).^30,31,13
• Unconfirmed: Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology. Its claimed signals in the microwave sky were not reproduced: one reanalysis found the data "fully consistent with the LCDM model", another found its "Hawking points" at "only an 87% confidence level".^32,33,34
• Beginning after all: eternal inflation is eternal toward the future but, as Guth writes, "not eternal into the past".³⁵ The 2019 cyclic model grows by "an exponential factor from one cycle to the next", so BGV applies to it.^36,13
• Alive but speculative: Aguirre and Gratton's steady-state eternal inflation, Carroll and Chen's spontaneous inflation, eternal "seed" universes, quantum bounces, the quantum-eternity line, and a 2024 model of inflation that is "geodesically complete for all time, including into the past" at the price of locally violating an energy condition.^{37,14,38,39,24,40} They are coherent. None has observational support, and several need special conditions at a boundary where the arrow of time starts: the place where explanation by earlier states stops.

The "from nothing" models (Vilenkin's tunnelling, Hartle and Hawking's no-boundary state) do have a beginning. But by their authors' own account they presuppose the laws of quantum mechanics. Vilenkin: "The theory of quantum creation is no more than a speculative hypothesis", and the laws "have some independent existence. What exactly this means, we don't know."¹³

So the honest summary is not "science has proven the universe began". It is: every attempt to avoid a beginning has so far failed or remains speculative, and our best classical theorem says expansion cannot be past-eternal. And the experts split. Vilenkin: "The answer to the question, 'Did the universe have a beginning?' is, 'It probably did.'"¹³ Carroll reports that Guth, his co-author, holds "that the universe probably didn't have a beginning, and is very likely eternal".²⁴

4. Who expected what

Most of the ancient world expected no beginning. Aristotle: "there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion".⁵⁵ The Buddha, in the Pali canon: "Mendicants, this transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found".⁵⁶ Indian traditions more broadly taught cycles without a first cycle.

Twentieth-century science started there too. Einstein added a constant to his equations to keep the universe static and eternal; in 1929 he still held that "the [space-time] continuum is infinite in its timelike extent".^31,30 Eddington, in 1928: "As a scientist I simply do not believe that the Universe began with a bang".³¹ Nernst: "To deny the infinite duration of time would be to betray the very foundations of science."¹³ Hoyle named the rival theory in a 1949 broadcast, "the hypothesis that all the matter of the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past", and rejected it.³¹

The beginning won because of data (the microwave background, helium, radio counts), not preference. Two cautions keep this honest. Some theists never thought a beginning necessary: Aquinas held it "by faith alone".¹ And the leading modern defender of a beginning draws no theological conclusion. Vilenkin: "my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God."¹³

5. What the Bible claims

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.Genesis 1:1, WEB⁵⁸

All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made.John 1:3, WEB

By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible.Hebrews 11:3, WEB

The Hebrew Bible says God made everything and was there before it: "Before the mountains were born, before you had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God" (Psalm 90:2, WEB). "I am Yahweh, who makes all things" (Isaiah 44:24, WEB).

One honest complication. Genesis 1:1 has a grammatical rival. The Jewish Publication Society translates it "When God began to create heaven and earth— the earth being unformed and void", with the footnote "Others 'In the beginning God created.'"⁵⁹ On that reading, the verse does not by itself assert an absolute beginning. Most translations, and the oldest Greek one, take the traditional reading. We treat the verse as contested and do not rest anything on it alone. Whether the Bible's picture matches cosmology is scored on the Genesis 1 page; here the point is narrower: the biblical tradition took the side of a made world while its great rivals took the side of an eternal one.

The analysis

The Kalam argument, stated carefully

The best-known form, from William Lane Craig, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sets it out:^65,66

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. (A further argument.) Such a cause must be beyond space and time, enormously powerful and, Craig argues, personal.

Premise 2 has a philosophical defence (an actual infinite cannot exist or be built up step by step) and a scientific one (the Big Bang, the theorems, the second law). This page weighs only the scientific one. Premise 1 is metaphysics. Physics cannot establish it, and physicists such as Carroll and Vilenkin reject it for the universe as a whole (see Objections). So rather than treat premise 1 as certain or as false, the model below lets you set how likely a brute, uncaused beginning is.

What follows from a first state, and what doesn't

Stated with care, the step from a first state goes like this. Suppose our history has a state that no earlier state explains, and that it could have been otherwise. Grant a principle of sufficient reason for particular facts: such a state has some explanation other than itself. A later state cannot explain it, since explanation does not run backward in time. So it is either necessary, or explained by something that is not one of the world's states: a law that fixes the initial state, a necessary fact, or something beyond physics.

That is a valid argument from a principle, and its principle is contested: a naturalist can say the first state is simply a brute fact, at the price of being unable to say why our present states are not "first" too. It is also modest. Naturalists who hold that a law fixes the universe's initial state (the no-boundary proposal, Vilenkin's tunnelling law) already accept its conclusion. So it narrows naturalism's options; it does not refute naturalism, and it says nothing yet about a mind. Two stronger claims do not follow from it: that the cause is "timeless and spaceless", and that the beginning refutes the idea that physical effects have physical causes (it refutes only the extreme version in which even the first event must have an earlier physical cause, a thesis no naturalist needs).

The bigger argument, that the whole history and its laws are explained by something outside the physical order, is the argument from contingency. It does not need a beginning at all, it is graded contested, and it is not scored on this page.

A Bayesian version that needs no certain premise

A likelihood ratio (LR) asks: how much more expected is this evidence if hypothesis A is true than if B is true? An LR of 1 means the evidence does not discriminate; 2 means it is twice as expected under A. Following Miller's Bayesian formulation of the Kalam,⁶⁷ we split the question in two.

D  = the cosmological data (sections 1-3 above)
B  = an absolute beginning (L3)
x  = P(D | B) / P(D | no B)   how strongly the data favour a beginning
pT = P(B | theism)             how strongly theism expects a beginning
pN = P(B | naturalism)         how strongly naturalism expects one

LR = P(D | theism) / P(D | naturalism)
   = [ x*pT + (1 - pT) ] / [ x*pN + (1 - pN) ]

The inputs, with reasons

• x, the data's support for a beginning: range 0.7–5, central 2. BGV and the failure so far of every past-eternal model push it above 1. The classical scope and live loopholes keep it modest. The theorem's own authors split ("probably did" vs "very likely eternal"), which is what an x of about 1–4 looks like. The low end, 0.7, allows Carroll's view that quantum eternity mildly favours no beginning.
• pT, how strongly theism expects a beginning: range 0.70–0.95, central 0.85. High for biblical theism (John 1:3, Hebrews 11:3, the creation-from-nothing tradition). Lowered by the Genesis 1:1 translation debate and by Aquinas's point that God could have made an eternal world.
• pN, how strongly naturalism expects a beginning: range 0.20–0.60, central 0.40. Naturalism has no law fixing the answer, so 0.5 is a neutral start. Pushed down because an uncaused first state strikes most people's causal intuitions as improbable, and because naturalists historically expected eternity. Pushed up because leading naturalistic cosmologies (tunnelling, no-boundary) predict a boundary of time. An eternal past has its own costs (the second law, BGV), so it is not near zero. The causal intuition pushes down only against a brute beginning: a naturalist with a law of the initial state is untouched by it (see above), which is why a very low pN is a high-end scenario, not the central one.

The result

The beginning of the universe favours theism over naturalism by a likelihood ratio of about 1.2–1.3. Drawing the three inputs at random across their ranges 200,000 times gives a median of 1.23 and a 90% band of 0.90–1.88; 18% of draws fall below 1, meaning they slightly favour naturalism. The ratio reaches 3–7 only if you grant both that the physics strongly favours a beginning (x of 4 or more) and the Kalam's causal principle (pN near 0.05).

What moves it.

• Most of all, x, the physics. A result that settled the quantum era (a proof that a bounce is unavoidable, or a no-go theorem for past-eternal quantum cosmologies) would move the ratio more than any philosophical argument.
• Next, pN, the metaphysics of uncaused beginnings. This is where defenders and critics of the Kalam actually disagree, so we let you set it below.
• Least, pT. Any theism that expects a beginning more than naturalism does gives an LR above 1 whenever x is above 1.

x log-uniform 0.7-5; pT uniform 0.70-0.95; pN uniform 0.20-0.60; n = 200,000
5th percentile 0.90   median 1.23   95th percentile 1.88   maximum 2.60
fraction with LR < 1: 0.182

Try your own numbers

Bars are on a log scale from 1/20 to 20; the middle is 1, no evidence either way. The full cumulative model, where this line combines with the others, is on the verdict page.

Objections

What this shows, and what it doesn't

What we don't claim

• "The BGV theorem proves the universe, or time, began." It proves that classical spacetimes expanding on average are past-incomplete. Its own authors disagree about whether the universe began.
• "BGV assumes general relativity." It assumes no energy condition and no particular theory of gravity, only average expansion.
• "Hawking–Penrose and BGV are the same result." They rest on different assumptions: energy conditions and general relativity versus average expansion alone.
• "The microwave background, or general relativity, proves a beginning of time." They establish our hot, dense past (L1). The singularity theorems assume classical general relativity and energy conditions.
• "The second law proves the universe had a beginning." It undercuts naive eternal models only. Models in which entropy can grow without limit escape it.
• "Science has proven creation from nothing." No physics reaches absolute nothing; every "from nothing" model presupposes laws.
• "Physics shows the universe came from nothing, so no God is needed." For the same reason: a quantum vacuum is not nothing.
• "Every cosmologist now accepts that the universe began." Guth, Carroll, Aguirre, Steinhardt and Penrose do not, at least not in the absolute sense.
• "JWST has refuted the Big Bang", or "JWST confirmed it". Its early-galaxy puzzles concern how galaxies form; after contamination is handled they are "not in tension with modern cosmology". Neither headline is warranted.
• "Penrose calculated the odds as 1 in 10¹²⁰." That number belongs to the cosmological-constant problem. Penrose's figure is 1 in 10¹⁰¹²³, about entropy, for a closed universe, and it belongs to fine-tuning.
• "The odds of our starting state were 1 in 10¹⁰¹²³." With a cosmological constant the comparable figure is about 1 in 10¹⁰¹²²; today's state gives the same number, so it measures how far our patch is from equilibrium, not how special the start was; and whether it is a probability of the start at all is contested.
• "Our universe is observed to expand, so the theorem applies to it." The theorem's condition is about the average over a whole past, a property of a model, not an observation.
• "The theorem applies to every bouncing cosmology." Not to one whose earlier phase contracts.
• "The beginning refutes naturalism", or "proves a timeless, spaceless cause". It refutes only the extreme claim that even the first event has an earlier physical cause. "Timeless" and "spaceless" do not follow.
• "Every attempt to avoid a beginning has failed; that is the consensus." Several escapes are live though weak, and the confident verdict is Vilenkin's own, not a consensus.
• "Vilenkin concluded the universe needs a cause." He wrote the opposite: "No cause is needed for the quantum creation of the universe."
• "10¹²² bits of information appeared from nothing, violating the conservation of information." Conservation of information governs how an existing system evolves, not whether it exists; 10¹²² bits is the horizon's maximum capacity, not the early universe's content, which was low.
• "The low-entropy start proves an outside ordering principle." A law of initial conditions does the same job, and the entropy data cannot tell the two apart.
• "The theorem rules out every infinite past." It rules out an infinitely long one, not one with infinitely many moments that ends at a singularity.
• "The moment of lowest entropy is the beginning." On the leading accounts it is where explanation by earlier states stops. In some models time runs on beyond it.
• "Dark energy shows the universe will end", or "physics proves time must end". The evidence for changing dark energy is under 5σ and contested, and it says nothing about the beginning.
• "Holography shows our universe is a projection from a higher realm." The holographic principle is real, but it does not show that the universe depends on anything beyond physics.
• "Einstein called the cosmological constant his 'biggest blunder'", as a direct quote. It is reported second-hand, by Gamow and others, and is not in Einstein's writings. Say "reportedly".
• "Hoyle coined 'big bang' to mock the theory." Kragh argues the name was not meant as a sneer, though Hoyle rejected the theory.
• Eddington's "repugnant", without context. It was about "a beginning of the present order of Nature", and we have it only as Lemaître reports it.
• Jastrow's "band of theologians", Penzias's "five books of Moses", and the much-shared Hawking and Smoot quotes. We could not verify them against their original sources, so we do not use them.
• "Genesis 1:1 unambiguously teaches an absolute beginning." The reading "When God began to create" has serious support (Rashi; the JPS translations).
• "The Bible alone among religions teaches a beginning." Zoroastrianism has a created world and a linear history; Islam teaches creation. "Rare in the ancient world, against the dominant Greek and Indian views" is defensible; "unique" is not.
• "2 Maccabees 7:28 proves Jews held creation from absolute nothing." It is the earliest explicit "not from things that were"; what that meant is debated, and Wisdom 11:17 speaks of "formless matter".

Sources

1. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 46, a. 2. New Advent. Checked.
2. Hubble, E. (1929). "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae." PNAS 15(3): 168-173. Bibliographic.
3. Planck Collaboration (2020). "Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters." Astronomy & Astrophysics 641: A6. arXiv:1807.06209. Abstract checked; the age (13.8 billion years) is in the body.
4. Fixsen, D. J. (2009). "The temperature of the cosmic microwave background." ApJ 707: 916-920. arXiv:0911.1955. Abstract checked.
5. Penzias, A. A., Wilson, R. W. (1965). "A measurement of excess antenna temperature at 4080 Mc/s." ApJ 142: 419-421; Mather, J. C. et al. (1994). "Measurement of the cosmic microwave background spectrum by the COBE FIRAS instrument." ApJ 420: 439. Bibliographic.
6. Fields, B. D., Olive, K. A., Yeh, T.-H., Young, C. (2020). "Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis after Planck." JCAP 03: 010. arXiv:1912.01132. Full text read for the dossier (eqs. 4, 6, 22-25); abstract checked.
7. Cooke, R. J., Pettini, M., Steidel, C. C. (2018). "One percent determination of the primordial deuterium abundance." ApJ 855: 102. arXiv:1710.11129. Abstract checked.
8. Labbé, I. et al. (2023). "A population of red candidate massive galaxies ~600 Myr after the Big Bang." Nature 616: 266. arXiv:2207.12446. Abstract checked.
9. Boylan-Kolchin, M. (2023). "Stress testing ΛCDM with high-redshift galaxy candidates." Nature Astronomy 7: 731-735. arXiv:2208.01611. Abstract checked.
10. Chworowsky, K. et al. (2024). "Evidence for a shallow evolution in the volume densities of massive galaxies at z = 4 to 8 from CEERS." AJ. arXiv:2311.14804. Abstract checked.
11. Egan, C. A., Lineweaver, C. H. (2010). "A larger estimate of the entropy of the universe." ApJ 710: 1825-1834. arXiv:0909.3983. Full text read for the dossier (Tables 1-2).
12. DESI Collaboration (2026). "DESI DR2 Results IV: Alcock-Paczyński measurements from the Lyman alpha forest and cosmological constraints." arXiv:2607.27410. Abstract checked.
13. Vilenkin, A. (2015). "The Beginning of the Universe." Inference: International Review of Science 1(4). inference-review.com. Full text checked.
14. Carroll, S. M., Chen, J. (2004). "Spontaneous inflation and the origin of the arrow of time." arXiv:hep-th/0410270. Abstract checked.
15. Penrose, R. (2004). The Road to Reality. Jonathan Cape (ch. 27-28); also The Emperor's New Mind (1989). Bibliographic.
16. Goldstein, S. (2001). "Boltzmann's approach to statistical mechanics." In J. Bricmont et al. (eds.), Chance in Physics. Springer. arXiv:cond-mat/0105242. Full text checked.
17. Carroll, S. M. (2014). "In what sense is the early universe fine-tuned?" arXiv:1406.3057. Abstract checked.
18. Hawking, S. W., Penrose, R. (1970). "The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology." Proc. R. Soc. A 314: 529-548. ADS. Bibliographic.
19. Hawking, S. W. (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam. Bibliographic.
20. Borde, A., Guth, A. H., Vilenkin, A. (2003). "Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete." Phys. Rev. Lett. 90: 151301. arXiv:gr-qc/0110012. Abstract checked.
21. Garcia-Saenz, S., Hua, J., Zhao, Y. (2024). "Geodesic completeness, cosmological bounces and inflation." Phys. Rev. D 110: L061304. arXiv:2405.04062. Abstract checked.
22. Kinney, W. H., Maity, S., Sriramkumar, L. (2024). "The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem in extended de Sitter spaces." Phys. Rev. D 109: 043519. arXiv:2307.10958. Abstract checked.
23. Kinney, W. H. (2026). "Geodesic completeness in general cosmological scenarios." Proceedings of the Rencontres de Moriond 2026. arXiv:2604.20809. Abstract checked.
24. Carroll, S. M. (2014, February 24). "Post-debate reflections" (on his debate with W. L. Craig). preposterousuniverse.com. Full text checked.
25. Wall, A. C. (2013). "The generalized second law implies a quantum singularity theorem." Class. Quantum Grav. 30: 165003. arXiv:1010.5513. Abstract checked.
26. Mithani, A., Vilenkin, A. (2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?" arXiv:1204.4658. Abstract checked.
27. Mithani, A., Vilenkin, A. (2012). "Collapse of simple harmonic universe." JCAP. arXiv:1110.4096. Abstract checked.
28. Lesnefsky, J. E., Easson, D. A., Davies, P. C. W. (2023). "On the past-completeness of inflationary spacetimes." Phys. Rev. D. arXiv:2207.00955. Abstract checked.
29. Geshnizjani, G., Ling, E., Quintin, J. (2023). "On the initial singularity and extendibility of flat quasi-de Sitter spacetimes." JHEP 2023: 182. arXiv:2305.01676. Abstract checked.
30. O'Raifeartaigh, C., Mitton, S. (2018). "Interrogating the legend of Einstein's 'biggest blunder'." Physics in Perspective 20: 318-341. arXiv:1804.06768. Abstract checked.
31. Kragh, H. (2013). "What's in a name: history and meanings of the term 'Big Bang'." arXiv:1301.0219 (shorter version in Astronomy & Geophysics 54(2): 2.28). Full text checked.
32. Gurzadyan, V. G., Penrose, R. (2010). "Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity." arXiv:1011.3706. Abstract checked.
33. Wehus, I. K., Eriksen, H. K. (2011). "A search for concentric circles in the 7-year WMAP temperature sky maps." ApJ 733: L29. arXiv:1012.1268. Abstract checked.
34. Jow, D. L., Scott, D. (2020). "Re-evaluating evidence for Hawking points in the CMB." JCAP 2020(03): 021. arXiv:1909.09672. Abstract checked.
35. Guth, A. H. (2007). "Eternal inflation and its implications." J. Phys. A 40: 6811. arXiv:hep-th/0702178. Abstract checked.
36. Ijjas, A., Steinhardt, P. J. (2019). "A new kind of cyclic universe." Phys. Lett. B 795: 666-672. arXiv:1904.08022. Abstract checked.
37. Aguirre, A., Gratton, S. (2002). "Steady-state eternal inflation." Phys. Rev. D 65: 083507, arXiv:astro-ph/0111191; (2003) "Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal." Phys. Rev. D 67: 083515, arXiv:gr-qc/0301042. Abstracts checked.
38. Ellis, G. F. R., Maartens, R. (2004). "The emergent universe: inflationary cosmology with no singularity." Class. Quantum Grav. 21: 223-232. arXiv:gr-qc/0211082. Abstract checked.
39. Ashtekar, A., Singh, P. (2011). "Loop quantum cosmology: a status report." Class. Quantum Grav. 28: 213001. arXiv:1108.0893. A general review, cited for the bounce idea only.
40. Easson, D. A., Lesnefsky, J. E. (2024). "Inflationary resolution of the initial singularity." arXiv:2402.13031. Abstract checked.
41. O'Raifeartaigh, C., McCann, B., Nahm, W., Mitton, S. (2014). "Einstein's steady-state theory: an abandoned model of the cosmos." EPJ H 39: 353-367. arXiv:1402.0132. Abstract checked.
42. Hoyle, F. (1948). "A new model for the expanding universe." MNRAS 108: 372. Bibliographic.
43. Steinhardt, P. J., Turok, N. (2002). "A cyclic model of the universe." Science 296: 1436. arXiv:hep-th/0111030. Abstract read for the dossier.
44. Graham, P. W., Horn, B., Kachru, S., Rajendran, S., Torroba, G. (2011). "A simple harmonic universe." arXiv:1109.0282. Abstract checked.
45. Mithani, A., Vilenkin, A. (2014). "Instability of an emergent universe." JCAP 05: 006. arXiv:1403.0818. Abstract checked.
46. Aguirre, A., Kehayias, J. (2013). "Quantum instability of the emergent universe." Phys. Rev. D 88: 103504. arXiv:1306.3232. Abstract checked.
47. Vilenkin, A. (1982). "Creation of universes from nothing." Phys. Lett. B 117: 25. Bibliographic.
48. Hartle, J. B. (2003). "The state of the universe." In G. W. Gibbons, E. P. S. Shellard, S. J. Rankin (eds.), The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology. Cambridge University Press. arXiv:gr-qc/0209046. Abstract checked.
49. Hartle, J. B., Hawking, S. W. (1983). "Wave function of the Universe." Phys. Rev. D 28: 2960. Bibliographic.
50. Feldbrugge, J., Lehners, J.-L., Turok, N. (2017). "No smooth beginning for spacetime." Phys. Rev. Lett. 119: 171301, arXiv:1705.00192; (2018) "No rescue for the no boundary proposal." Phys. Rev. D 97: 023509, arXiv:1708.05104. Abstracts checked.
51. Krauss, L. M. (2012). A Universe from Nothing. Free Press. Bibliographic.
52. Albert, D. (2012, March 23). "On the origin of everything" (review of Krauss). New York Times Book Review. Bibliographic; not opened.
53. Grünbaum, A. (1991). "Creation as a pseudo-explanation in current physical cosmology." Erkenntnis 35: 233; (1994) "Some comments on William Craig's 'Creation and Big Bang Cosmology'." Philosophia Naturalis 31: 225. Via the SEP entry.
54. Carroll, S. M. (2018). "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" arXiv:1802.02231. Abstract checked.
55. Aristotle, Physics VIII.1, tr. R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye. MIT Internet Classics Archive. Checked.
56. Saṃyutta Nikāya 15.1 (Tiṇakaṭṭha Sutta), tr. Bhikkhu Sujato. SuttaCentral. Checked.
57. Lemaître, G. (1931). "The beginning of the world from the point of view of quantum theory." Nature 127: 706. PDF. Full text checked.
58. World English Bible (public domain), eBible.org. ebible.org/eng-web: Gen 1:1-2; Ps 90:2; Isa 44:24; John 1:3; Rom 4:17; Heb 11:3; 2 Macc 7:28; Wis 11:17. Checked.
59. Tanakh (Jewish Publication Society, 1985) and The Contemporary Torah (JPS, 2006), Gen 1:1-2. Sefaria. Checked.
60. Rashi on Genesis 1:1, tr. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann (1929-34). Sefaria. Read for the dossier.
61. Fox, E. (1995). The Five Books of Moses. Schocken. Note on Gen 1:1. Via Sefaria; read for the dossier.
62. Wenham, G. J. (1987). Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary 1). Word. Bibliographic.
63. May, G. (1994). Creatio ex nihilo: The Doctrine of "Creation out of Nothing" in Early Christian Thought, tr. A. S. Worrall. T&T Clark. Bibliographic.
64. Copan, P. (1996). "Is creatio ex nihilo a post-biblical invention? An examination of Gerhard May's proposal." Trinity Journal 17: 77-93. PDF. Bibliographic.
65. Reichenbach, B. "Cosmological Argument." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato.stanford.edu. Read for the dossier.
66. Craig, W. L., Sinclair, J. D. (2009). "The kalam cosmological argument." In W. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, 101-201. Wiley-Blackwell. Bibliographic.
67. Miller, C. (2014). "A Bayesian formulation of the kalam cosmological argument." Religious Studies 50: 521. Abstract read for the dossier.
68. Oppy, G. (2006). Arguing about Gods. Cambridge University Press. Bibliographic.
69. Morriston, W. (2000). "Must the beginning of the universe have a personal cause?" Faith and Philosophy 17: 149. Bibliographic.
70. Gott, J. R., Li, L.-X. (1998). "Can the universe create itself?" Phys. Rev. D 58: 023501. arXiv:astro-ph/9712344. Full text checked.
71. Craig, W. L., Smith, Q. (1993). Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology. Oxford University Press. Bibliographic.