Infinite Cycle of Expansion Atheistic Theory, Help needed to refute


Hi, I meet an Atheist online who countered my argument, that the universe needs a creator, by suggesting this theory (infinite cycle of expansion and collapse). I didn’t know how to counter this theory, so I looked through Catholic Answers and found a refutation to the theory in an article. (I summarized the refutation, the one I sent the atheist was longer)

  1. There’s not enough matter to produce enough gravity for the universe to collapse
  2. The gravity exerted in collapsing the universe would prevent expansion
  3. Entropy would prevent this theory from continuing forever
    Conclusion: God must have intervened for the big bang to happen

He/She argued that Science actually disproves this (linking me articles) and that there is enough matter. I quote, “Dark matter is a factor.”
He/She also pointed out that Black Holes are in a maximum state of entropy. Therefore, if the whole universe collapsed into a black hole, the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) wouldn’t hinder his theory.

What do I say to the Atheistic to show him/her that God is needed for the big bang. Is there any way to refute this refutation?
Thanks God Bless


What the atheist is saying here is speculation. The fact of the matter is the universe keeps expanding in an accelerated way, this has been measured by scientists. There is no evidence of ‘collapse’ so the cycle theory is just speculation. I would ask him to explain how dark matter and dark energy interact to hold the universe together because at this rate of acceleration the universe should be a soup of scattered particles already.


Is this person a research or theoretical physicist? I’m guessing not. There is currently is research going on at the CERN accelerator in order to essentially determine if our universe all is there is or if it is just a larger part of a larger thing. If there is other universes, then likely their rules are completely different. These would blow up just about everything we believe we know as it is based on observation, some unusual constants (e.g. Pi), and mathematical models that have proven amazingly correct when tested for. This is a distillation of a recent PBS Nova program.

So it sounds like someone is pulling from a theoretical grab bag and pretending they really understand what they are saying.


This article might help.

It’s a long article so search for “oscillating model” and you’ll find the bit about that


Thank you so much everyone for your help :+1: Have a blessed day


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit