Do any mathematicians realize that the universe had to have a beginning? Well some mathematicians from Tufts University have challenged some anti-biblical models of the origin of the universe and concluded that it did:

Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning
Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning…
In recent years…cosmologists have begun to study a number of new ideas that have similar properties. Curiously, these ideas are not necessarily at odds with the notion of a Big Bang.
For instance, one idea is that the universe is cyclical with big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs in an infinite cycle.
Another is the notion of eternal inflation in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. These regions can be thought of as different universes in a giant multiverse.
So although we seem to live in an inflating cosmos, other universes may be very different. And while our universe may look as if it has a beginning, the multiverse need not have a beginning…
Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.
Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.
However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.
They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.
They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.
The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/?ref=rss

And if the physical universe had to have a beginning, then something that was not physical must have started it. And that leads to the logical conclusion that a non-physical being, like God, must have done so. And that is what the Bible teaches:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. (Genesis 1:1-5)

And while the mathematicians at Tufts did not go into biblical detail, their conclusion that the physical universe must have had a beginning is correct.

As far as the future role of resurrected human beings in the universe, notice the following passage from Hebrews:

6 But one testified in a certain place, saying: “What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him? 7 You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands. 8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”
For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.
10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. (Hebrews 2:6-10)

So, the entire universe was made for humankind, but is not yet under human subjection, but will be first under Jesus. And then, later under humankind.

But there is more. Notice something else that the Bible teaches:

33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end. (Luke 1:33)
6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end…(Isaiah 9:6-7)

This seems to mean that either the physical dimensions of Christ’s kingdom will always be increasing (hence perhaps more and more planets, stars, and galaxies) and/or their will be a continual increase in the number of beings in Christ’s kingdom.

Interestingly, the same mathematicians at Tufts agree with this concept as they stated that the universe can, according to their mathematical model, continue to expand into the future, consistent with scripture (which, no, they did not cite).

The Continuing Church of God has put together the following animated videos on our new CCOG Animations channel:

13:48
Big Bang: Nothing or Creator?
Colleges and universities teach variations of a godless ‘Big Bang theory’ as science. But is it scientific or simply the musing of scientists? The late Dr. Stephen Hawking stated that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Is it logical that nothing became everything? What should have happened then according to scientists? What happens to radioactive materials like uranium? What does the Bible teach about errors called science? Is God’s existence more logical than a godless ‘Big Bang’? Which has more actual proof? In this animation, a university student asks a professor questions and provides information that students and those out of school should know.

15:06
A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?
Did life just spring up on its own? Is this possible according to a Nobel-prize winning scientist who believes in ‘spontaneous generation’ and other aspects of evolution? Is there any possibility that life could have just started on its own and thrived to the point of being able to reproduce? Is the academic community biased against those who believe in a Divine Creator God? Does it make scientific sense to believe in the atheistic position? Is there more proof of God’s existence than there is for ‘spontaneous generation’? What about DNA and Charles Darwin? What about the RNA first hypothesis? What about matter, entropy, biogenesis, and abiogenesis? Is evolution possible, probable, or impossible? Dr. Thiel addresses these issues and more.

Here are links to our animated videos: Big Bang: Nothing or Creator? and A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?

As I have written here for some time, scripture and properly understood science are compatible (and I am not declaring that there cannot be any flaws in the Tufts’ mathematical model, though I agree with their conclusions that the physical universe had to have a beginning and that it can continue to expand forever).

While humans now are fairly insignificant in certain physical ways, God has a plan to involve humanity in ruling the universe. A universe that He began (Genesis 1:1).

More on that can be found in the free online book: The MYSTERY of GOD’s PLAN: Why Did God Create Anything? Why Did God Make You?

Related Items:

Is God’s Existence Logical?

Big Bang: Nothing or Creator?

A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?

Does it Make Physical Sense to believe in God?

Is it logical to believe in God?

Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II

Is There Another View of Evolution?

Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life

How Old is the Earth and How Long Were the Days of Creation? Gap Theory?

Gap Theory: Doctrine or Modern Heresy?