Science and the Existence of God: Big Bang or Big
Bust?
Science and the Existence of God: Big Bang or Big
Bust?
Is it pseudo-science to claim that scientific evidence
demonstrates the existence of God? Does science give good reasons to
believe that God exists? The only way to answer this question is to
examine the evidence. Too often people are willing to use science to
criticize religion, but then are unwilling to honestly consider an
attempt to use science to give evidence for religion. Such a double
standard is simply inconsistent. We must give up any a priori
presuppositions that science can have nothing to do with religious faith
(other than "disprove" it), and let the evidence speak for itself.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
In this paper, we will examine an argument that has recently
become very popular in answering the question I have posed with a
yes---science does give us very good evidence for the existence of God.
It is called the Kalam Cosmological argument. During the course of
detailing the argument, we will also examine several objections to see if
it can hold its weight. In the end, I hope it will be clear why I agree
with the Christian apologists who find in the Cosmological argument a
very strong case for God's existence.
Before beginning, let me first remove a few possible
misunderstandings. First, I am not out to deal with the red-herring
religious disputes over the age of the earth--a belief in an old earth is
perfectly consistent with an ordinary manner of interpreting the Bible.
Second, the Cosmological argument does not "propose some
sort of creation science whereby God becomes a part of a scientific
theory."[1] The role of science in the argument is simply to show that
the universe had a beginning--which is religiously neutral. The
questions raised by this are logical and philosophical in character, not
scientific. Science need not deal with the religious implications of a
beginning of the universe, but as human beings we must surely examine the
questions raised by the scientific evidence that the universe has not
always been here. The Cosmological argument applies here by, after
examining the scientific evidence, taking a look at its meaningful
ramifications; but it does not try and mold science to fit into a
specific world-view.
Third, this argument does not claim to offer absolute proof for
God's existence. It is simply attempting to show that His existence is
abundantly pointed to by the evidence. With this in mind, let us begin
our investigation.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is really very simple:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. Philosophical analysis reveals that this cause must be God.
5. Therefore, God exists.
If each premise is true, it is clear that the case for God's
existence has been established. So the task that we must place before
ourselves is to answer the question, Are there good reasons to believe
that each of these steps is true?
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
This premise does not require much defending. Christian
philosopher William Lane Craig remarks that it is "so intuitively obvious
that I think scarcely anyone could sincerely believe it to be false."[2]
He later asks, "Does anyone in his right mind really believe that, say, a
raging tiger could suddenly come into existence uncaused, out of nothing,
in this room right now? The same applies to the universe: if prior to
the existence of the universe, there was absolutely nothing -- no God, no
space, no time -- how could the universe possibly have come to exist?"[3]
The Universe Began to Exist
There are two sets of arguments that the universe had a
beginning. One set is philosophical and one is scientific. The
philosophical argument has two different branches, both arguing for the
impossibility of a universe that has always existed and never had a
beginning. The scientific argument has five prongs. We will first take
a brief look at the philosophical argument and then take an in-depth look
at the scientific argument.
The philosophical argument for a beginning of the universe
The first branch of the philosophical argument is as follows:
1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one
member after another.
This is obvious, for "the past did not spring
into being whole and entire but was formed sequentially,
one event occurring after another," as Craig puts it.
2. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be
actually infinite.
This is because you can always add ONE MORE,
but as long as you can add one more, it is not infinity.
One might say that this is true only in finite
time, but if there was an infinite amount of time this
task could be accomplished. However, the
problem has to do with
the nature of an actual
infinite itself, not how much time one has. The objection does not work
because it simply
postulates "one actual infinite to resolve problems with another actual
infinite...but this
merely shifts those problems from one actual infinite to another," which
begs the question.[4] Even if one had
been counting forever,
it would still be impossible for him to finish writing down all
of the negative numbers and ending at
-1.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.
4. Therefore the universe had a beginning.[5]
The second branch of the philosophical argument that the universe
began to exist is that it is impossible for an actual infinity to
exist in reality (potential infinities are possible, an example of
which is simply being able to begin counting and then continue forever).
However, if the universe had no beginning, then this would entail an
actual infinity of past events. Since this is impossible, the universe
must have had a beginning. Why can't an actual infinity exist? This is
because the existence of an actual infinity in reality would lead to
irreconcilable contradictions. Mathematician David Hilbert has shown
this very well in his thought experiment that came to be labeled
"Hilbert's Hotel."[6]
These two independently established philosophical arguments in
themselves give a strong case for the beginning of the universe. But the
Cosmological argument is able to be made even stronger. We will now turn
to the scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe.
Scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe
Agnostic and internationally known scientist Robert Jastrow, in
his book God and the Astronomers, lists "five independent lines of
evidence" that the universe had a beginning. They are, "the motions of
the galaxies, the discovery of the primordial fireball, the laws of
thermodynamics, the abundance of helium in the Universe and the life
story of the stars."[7] Those who argue for the Cosmological argument
point to this evidence as well, but classify it somewhat differently.
For our purposes, we will first look at the evidence for the Big Bang
(supported by such things as the motions of galaxies, the discovery of
the primordial fireball, and the abundance of helium) and how it points
to a beginning of the universe. Then, we will examine some of the
alternatives to the Big Bang model. Third, we will examine the
implications of thermodynamics, and then briefly look at "the life story
of the stars."
Evidence for a beginning from the Big Bang. In 1929
astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered a red shift of light from distant
galaxies, which meant that the galaxies were moving away from us.
Furthermore, the speed at which the galaxies are moving away is
proportional to their distance from us. This meant that the universe is
expanding the same in all directions, which is what happens in an
explosion.[8] Growing evidence served to confirm Hubble's's conclusions,
and also showed that at an earlier time in the universe galaxies were
traveling away from each other at greater speeds than they are
now. This meant that the universal expansion is actually slowing down
from an initial, powerful "surge." Therefore, modern science had further
confirmation that the universe is not simply expanding, it is
exploding.
According to Craig, "the staggering implication of this is that
some point in the past the entire known universe was contracted down to a
single mathematical point, from which it has been expanding ever since"
and which also marks the origin of the universe.[9]
Einstein's general theory of relativity also gives good evidence
for an expanding universe. His equations showed that if the universe's
density is lower than a certain amount (the critical density), the
universe should be expanding with time. If the mass in the universe was
greater than this amount, the universe would eventually stop expanding
and fall together on itself. At first Einstein tried to avoid such
conclusions about an expanding universe and added his famous
"cosmological constant" for this purpose in his 1917 paper, "Cosmological
Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity." But in 1922
mathematician Alexander Friedmann found an error in Einstein's attempt to
establish that the universe was static, and showed that the universe must
either be expanding or contracting. Astronomer William de Sitter, who
worked independently of Friedmann five years before, also found that on
the basis of Einstein's equations the universe must be expanding. Later,
Einstein admitted his error and called his cosmological constant "the
greatest blunder of my life."[10]
George Lemaitre, the father of the Big Bang theory, and many
other theorists such as George Gamow and Ralph Alpher, predicted that the
heat from the big bang must still exist since it would have nowhere to
escape (since there is nowhere "outside" the universe). Thus, if this
radiation could be found, it would serve as overwhelming confirmation of
the Big Bang.
In 1965 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two physicists at the
AT&T Bell laboratories, discovered microwave background radiation of
approximately 3 degrees Kelvin from every point in the sky--indicating
that its source was the universe itself, not any part of the
universe.[11] This was the "primordial fireball"--the remnant of the Big
Bang predicted by theorists. While critics dismissed Penzias and
Wilson's 1965 discovery as a failure because the measured temperature was
lower than predicted (three degrees Kelvin as opposed to five), the
significance of the discovery is that the radiation was there at all.
And further analysis confirmed that the radiation was from the Big Bang,
as it was found to match with "the pattern of intensities at different
wavelengths and frequencies of radiation that matches the pattern of the
radiation produced in an explosion."[12] In fact, the radiation was
eventually found to match perfectly with the spectrum predicted
for the cosmic explosion of the Big Bang.[13] Additionally, the
temperature was extremely even, evidencing a common origin. This is
extraordinary evidence for the Big Bang--the evenness of the temperature,
the conformity to blackbody radiation, and its emission from all parts of
the universe.
But this background radiation also posed a big problem to
theory. It appeared to be too smooth; it would have to be slightly
rippled to account for a type of explosion that could produce galaxies.
But a revolutionary discovery in 1992 solved this problem, when NASA's
COBE satellite team discovered the ripples in the cosmic background
radiation predicted by the Big Bang theory.
Finally, the Big Bang theory predicts that the universe should
contain about three-quarters hydrogen and one-quarter helium (and a small
amount of the other elements). Observation of the stars has confirmed
this prediction.[14]
We have seen the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. This
means that at, as we quoted Craig in saying earlier, at "some point in
the past the entire known universe was contracted down to a single
mathematical point [called a singularity'], from which it has been
expanding ever since." But the ramifications of this are not simply that
the universe exploded a long time ago, but that the universe exploded
into existence a finite time ago. Craig shows how this is drawn from
the fact of the "single mathematical point" from which the universe
exploded. He points out that as we trace the universe's expansion back
in time,
the universe
becomes denser and denser until one reaches point of infinite density from
which the universe began to expand...This event that marked the
beginning of the universe becomes all the more amazing when one reflects
on the fact that a state of `infinite density' is
synonymous to `nothing.'
[This is because] there can be no object that possesses infinite density,
for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense.
Therefore, as
Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires
the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in
time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was
shrunk down to nothing at all.'[15]
In other words, the universe exploded from a mathematical point
of infinite density. But since a state of infinite density is equivalent
to nothing, this is equivalent to saying that the universe exploded into
existence from nothing. But is it justified to say that a point of
infinite density is "synonymous to nothing"? Secular physicist Barry
Parker confirms that this singularity of infinite density would have zero
dimensions.[16] As Craig points out, this is because if it did have size
it would be capable of increasing in its density, and thus would not be
infinitely dense. Physicist Harold Fritzsch also points out that time
and matter both cease to exist in singularities.[17]
The implications of this are clear. Craig quotes "four of the
world's most famous astronomers" about how the Big Bang reveals a
beginning to the universe: "The universe began from a state of infinite
density....Space and time were created in that event and so was all
the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what
happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the
North Pole."[18]
So, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe did not simply
start its expansion 15 billion years ago; space, time, and matter
themselves sprang into existence at that time. British physicist P.C.W.
Davies explains why this is so: "If we extrapolate this prediction to its
extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk
to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past
temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical
reasoning or even the concept of space time, through such an extremity.
For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the
beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the
creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the
universe, but also of space time itself."[19]
Another pair of scientists has also concluded that "At this
singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing
existed before the singularity, and, if the Universe originated in
such a singularity, we would truly have creation ex nihilio [out of
nothing]."[20]
Do alternative models disprove the Big Bang? Christopher
Isham has said: "Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that
the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is
greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific
ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being
advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one
can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much
deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her
theory."[21]
Those who argue for the Cosmological argument are aware of
scientific models other than the big bang. But the alternative models
are not convincing; the best explanation seems to be the Big Bang. Most
scientists agree that the other models fail, including Robert Jastrow.
We will now look at the reasons scientists reject these other theories so
that we do not simply need to take the authority of others.
The Steady State Modeldenies that the universe had a
beginning, instead claiming that the universe has always existed in the
same state. The average density of the universe remains constant because
new matter continually comes into existence to counterbalance the
expansion and fill the voids left by the retreating galaxies. Jastrow
describes it this way: "such a world exists in a state of perpetual
balance, forever expanding, forever ageing, and yet forever
renewed."[22]
This theory, according to S.L. Jaki, never had "a single piece of
experimental verification." Jastrow points out that the steady state
model was convincingly "refuted" by the 1965 discovery of the "cosmic
fireball radiation" which points conclusively to an explosive beginning
of the universe--a big bang.[23] In the steady state model, this cosmic
fireball could never have existed because in it the universe is supposed
to be from eternity.
Additionally, this theory cannot account for "the fact that a
count of galaxies emitting radio waves indicates that there were once
more radio sources than there are today. Therefore, the universe is not
in a steady state after all."[24] According to Jastrow, "adverse
evidence has led to the abandonment of the Steady State theory by nearly
everyone, leaving the Big Bang theory exposed as the only adequate
explanation of the facts."[25]
The next model is the oscillating model. This is the
theory that the universe is continually expanding, collapsing again, then
expanding again, and repeating this cycle eternally. Craig brings out
two "very well-known difficulties" with this theory. The first problem
is that the oscillating model contradicts the known laws of physics. The
late Yale professor Tinsley reports that "even though the mathematics
says that the universe oscillates, there is no known physics to reverse
the collapse and bounce back to a new expansion. The physics seem to say
that those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, then
end."[26]
The second problem with the oscillating model is that the
observational evidence contradicts it. Craig shows two pieces of this
observation evidence which contradict the oscillating model. First,
matter appears to be evenly distributed throughout the universe. There
is no way for this to be on the oscillating model, because if the
universe were to contract black holes would begin to suck everything up.
"But when the universe (supposedly) rebounds from its contracting phase,
there is no mechanism to `iron out' these lumps and make the distribution
smooth."[27]
Secondly, it appears as if "the force of the expansion is greater
than the force of gravity so that the expansion will never stop but will
just go on and on forever." Density is the main factor in determining
the strength of gravity. If the universe is expanding at a speed beyond
the "escape velocity" that will allow it to overcome the force of
gravity, then it will keep expanding forever. In order for the universe
to re-contract, it must be expanding at a speed slower than the escape
velocity. Craig points out in one of his articles that "recent work on
calculating the speed and deceleration of the expansion confirms that the
universe is expanding at, so to speak, `escape velocity' and will not
therefore re-contract." Measurements indicate that there is not enough
density in the universe to provide the gravity necessary to re-contract
the universe.
Jastrow elaborates on how calculation of the rate of expansion
reveals that there is not enough density to provide the gravity necessary
for re-contraction. If the universe has slowed down a lot over the
eons, then it indicates a high density that would be able to make the
universe re-contract. But if the universe has only slowed down a little,
it indicates that there is not a significantly high density to bring
about re-contraction. Jastrow relates that the rate of expansion of the
universe has not slowed down very much over the billions of years--the
"Hubble age" is only slightly more than the "true age," revealing only a
slight decrease. The implications of this are that "there is a
relatively low density of matter in the Universe"--a density level that
is "not sufficient to halt the expansion" and make the universe
recontract. This yields "the result that the Universe will expand
forever."[28] This method seems to be highly accurate because it does
not require the direct observation of matter, or even direct knowledge of
the density of every form of matter (such as that of neutrinos), as it
calculates the density from velocity instead.
Other forms of calculating the density of the universe confirm
that there is not enough density to bring about re-contraction.
Goldsmith points out that observational evidence indicates that the
luminous matter in the universe amounts to less than 2 percent of the
critical density needed for re-contraction.[29] In a frantic search to
account for this extra matter needed to provide the density for
re-contraction, there are two theories of extra-ordinary, non-luminous
matter posed to account for it.
The first theory is hot dark matter. This theory holds
that subatomic particles such as neutrinos, which are not thought to have
any mass, may have mass after all. This mass could perhaps bring us to
the critical density. However, Fritzsch makes it clear that there is no
good evidence that neutrinos have mass, and they have always behaved as
if they do not have any mass.[30] Further, if neutrinos had mass it
would predict a large-scale structure of the universe that is
inconsistent with observational evidence. Further, even if neutrinos did
have mass, it would not be enough to bring the density up to the
re-contraction point. According to Fritzsch, the mass of a neutrino
would be between 1 and 30 eV,[31] but a mass of 50 eV is needed for
re-contraction.[32]
The second theory is cold dark matter. This matter could
only exist in intergalactic space, for otherwise it would "disrupt the
measured motion of galaxies." However, "the existence of vast amounts of
exotic matter in intergalactic space is incompatible with the recent
measurements by the COBE satellite of the primordial fluctuations in the
microwave background radiation."[33] No one can find where this cold
dark matter could come from; appealing to its existence to solve the
problem therefore has no more basis than saying that the dragon in my
garage is immaterial and invisible. Perhaps more astonishingly,
Goldsmith points out that even if we were to add the mass of luminous and
the alleged dark matter (either cold or hot) together, we would still
have only about 5 percent of the critical density needed to
re-contract.[34] Craig quotes two scientists, Sandage and Tammann, as
concluding: "Hence, we are forced to decide that...it seems inevitable
that the universe will expand forever."
Sandage and Tammann later relate their discovery that, based upon
the observational evidence, it seems that even high density universes
would be unable to re-contract. "Hence, the one certain conclusion is
that in all models of either high or low density, ...the Universe will
not stop its expansion. This means it has happened only once.
The creation event was unique."[35]
Quantum models are the remaining significant
alternatives. The first of these are vacuum fluctuation models,
which state that our universe is simply a "mini-universe" which sprang
into existence from within the steady state of a much larger universes;
likewise, there are probably many such "mini-universes" beyond our own
which have sprung into existence. However, such models do not have a
very wide following and have been abandoned by many of their
originators. Craig details many problems with such theories, but the
problem which is easiest to explain is that the vacuum fluctuation models
have been shown to be contrary to observational cosmology.[36] On the
vacuum model, there is no way to tell exactly where a "fluctuation in the
primordial vacuum will occur which will grow into a universe."[37] Such
fluctuations could occur simply anywhere in space. Thus, throughout an
infinite past history of time a universe will spring into existence at
every point and, as they expand, they will collide with one another. We
simply do not observe anything of the sort in nature.
Another set of Quantum models are the quantum gravity
models. Perhaps that advocated by Stephen Hawking has drawn the most
attention. "Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all
possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe
with features our universe possesses. ...This remaining universe has a
certain probability very high--near a hundred percent--of coming into
existence uncaused."[38] Hawking's theory is consistent with evidence
such as the expansion of the universe, the evenly-distributed matter on a
large scales, the inflation near the beginning of the universe, and the
COBE satellites discoveries.
Hawking's theory claims that the universe need not have a cause
because "the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95%
probability that the universe came into existence uncaused."[39] It
doesn't need a cause because it comes into existence due to its natural,
mathematical properties, not a supernatural force.
Hawking says of his view, "The quantum theory of gravity has
opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to
space time...There would be no singularities at which the laws of
science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to
appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for
space-time...The universe would be completely self-contained and not
affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor
destroyed. It would just BE... What place, then, for a creator?"[40]
Craig and others give a complicated and many faceted critique of
this theory, but I will try and put it into the most concise and simple
language that I can. The main problem is that Hawking's theory only
works with imaginary numbers. While imaginary numbers are fine to work
with in equations, one learns in any advanced math class (I myself
learned this in High School) that it is always necessary to
convert the imaginary numbers back to real numbers in order to have a
meaningful result that corresponds to reality. The fatal problem with
Hawking's use of imaginary numbers is that he does not re-convert them
back to real numbers. When Hawking's equations are actually taken
through the necessary step of converting back to real numbers, his theory
evaporates. As Hawking himself admits, "Only if we could picture the
universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no
singularities...when one goes back to the real time in which we live,
however, there will still appear to be singularities [and thus the
need for a beginning]."[41] Hawking himself says that "in real time, the
universe has a beginning."[42]
Second, Hawking's concept of "imaginary time" is unintelligible.
It makes no more sense than an imaginary elephant in my garage, or an
imaginary volume of liquid. "Thus, Hawking does not really eliminate the
singularity [and thus beginning of the universe]. He conceals it behind
the physically unintelligible artifice of imaginary time."[43]
Third, Hawking's use of imaginary numbers makes time a spatial
dimension, "which is just bad metaphysics."[44] Space and time are
necessarily different things--space being defined by a relation of
betweenness, and time by a relation of earlier/later than. Time made out
to be a dimension of space, as Hawking makes it, would thus cease to be
time. Because of the commonality between Hawking's model and all other
quantum gravitational models, the critique given to Hawking applies to
the other models as well.
Now that we have seen the fatal flaws in the alternative models,
it should be even more clear that the Big Bang is very likely an accurate
account of the universe's origin. While this in itself makes the
Cosmological argument very convincing, the case is made even stronger by
giving thermodynamic confirmation for the beginning of the universe.
This line of evidence is independent of the Big Bang theory and thus
serves to greatly strengthen our case--in other words, even if the Big
Bang theory was wrong, the evidence from thermodynamics would still
stand.
Thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics
indicates that a closed system will tend toward a state of maximum
entropy. When we apply this to the universe as a whole, it means that
the universe will eventually run down, and come to a state of thermal
equilibrium. This is called heat death, and there are two forms of it.
A hot death would occur if the universe were to
re-contract. We have already seen the evidence against this, but even if
it were possible, black holes would suck up everything around them as the
universe contracted. As the universe got even smaller, the black holes
themselves would have to merge with one another. Thus, everything in the
universe would finally coalesce into one large black hole from which it
would never be able to re-emerge (since nothing can escape a black hole).
If the universe continues to expand forever, however, it will
experience a cold death. This means that it will simply keep
expanding until everything finally cools off and all matter attains
thermal equilibrium. No change would ever be possible from this
condition.
In light of this, Craig asks a potent question: "if given enough
time the universe will reach a heat death, then why is it not in a state
of heat death now, if it has existed forever, from eternity? If the
universe did not begin to exist, then it should now be in a state of
equilibrium."[45] In the words of theoretical physicist Paul
Davies: "The universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would
have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion:
the universe did not always exist."[46]
The oscillating model is one attempt to escape this conclusion.
However, we have already seen why it cannot work. Further, even if it
were true, it would still point to a beginning of the universe. "For as
several scientists have pointed out, each time the model universe expands
it would expand farther than before. Therefore, if you traced the
expansions back in time they would get smaller and smaller and smaller"
which amounts to a time when it had to begin.[47] In fact, it is
estimated that "on the basis of the current level of entropy in the
universes that it could not have gone through more than 100 previous
oscillations."[48]
One objection to this is that there is a continuous creation of
energy from nothingness. However, "there is no scientific evidence for
continuous creation of matter or energy, even if such a notion could be
squared with the highly rational principle that something cannot come
from nothing without a cause."[49]
Craig brings out the ramifications of thermodynamics: "whether
you choose a re-contracting model, an ever-expanding mode, or an
oscillating model, thermodynamics implies that the universe had a
beginning...Prior to the creation, the universe simply did not
exist."[50]
The life of stars. Jastrow points out that stars burn
hydrogen and convert it to heavier elements, making it impossible for the
hydrogen to be restored to its original state. Thus, the amount of
hydrogen in the universe is continually decreasing and cannot be
replenished. The further back in time we go, the more hydrogen there
will be. Finally, "the astronomer comes to a time when the Universe
contained nothing but hydrogen....This point in time must mark the
beginning of the universe."[51] Further, if the universe was eternal, it
would have run out of hydrogen long ago.
Summary. Now let's take a step back and summarize the
arguments for the beginning of the universe. We have given five reasons
to conclude that the universe had a beginning: the philosophical argument
for the impossibility of an actual infinity resulting from adding one
event after another, the philosophical argument for the impossibility of
an actual infinity at all, the scientific arguments for the Big Bang
theory, the unconvincing nature of theories other than the Big Bang, the
scientific evidence from thermodynamics, and the scientific evidence from
the life of stars.
It should be noted that an argument is stronger when it has more
independent premises supporting it. In regards to our argument for the
beginning of the universe, all five of our lines of evidence are
independent--they do not depend on each other for their truth. This
means, for example, that even if one could refute the Big Bang, the
evidence from thermodynamics would still require a beginning of the
universe. But even if one could also refute the evidence from
thermodynamics, one would still have to refute both of his philosophical
arguments for the beginning of the universe and the evidence from the
life of stars. Thus, the five independently established cords to this
argument make it very, very strong.
It therefore seems clear that the universe must have had a
beginning, and it therefore requires a cause. There is simply one last
step to the argument: What is the nature of this first cause?
Philosophical analysis reveals that this cause must be
God
Robert Jastrow writes: "Consider the enormity of the problem.
Science has proven that the Universe exploded into being at a certain
moment. It asks, What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the
matter and energy into the Universe? ....And science cannot answer these
questions..."[52] Through philosophical analysis of the situation, we
will attempt to discover the nature of this first cause so that we can
go, as human beings, where science does not.
First, it is evident that this cause is supernatural. Having
established that the physical universe came into existence a finite time
ago means that the cause of this beginning could not itself be physical
(i.e., natural)--because nothing physical existed yet. Thus, the cause
must be supernatural--not part of the physical universe. From this it
also follows that the cause is independent of its creation--it is
self-existent, rather than dependant upon creation for existence.
This leads to the second thing--this cause must be infinite. For
if it were not infinite, it would be limited by some other thing, and
thus it would no longer be independent.
Third, this cause must be eternally existing outside of time and
space. Many people object to the Cosmological argument asking, what
caused God? It is unjustified to make Him the only exception to the
rule, they say. However, this is to misunderstand the argument. The
argument is not that everything that exists has a cause, but that
whatever begins to exist has a cause. The reason God does not
require a cause is because He never began to exist. It is the definition
of God that He is the uncaused first cause of all things--for without
this Being there would be an infinite regress of causes, a sure
impossibility. It reminds me of the child who asked, "What holds up the
earth?" The parent responded, "A giant elephant." "But what holds up
the elephant?" probed the child. "Why, another elephant," the parent
replied. "But what about that elephant--what holds it up?" The parent
responded, "It is elephants all the way down." Surely that is absurd!
Likewise, there must be an immutable, eternal first cause in order to
escape the contradictions of an infinite regress of causes, and this is
included in what we mean by God.
Fourth, this cause must be personal. This is because bringing
the universe into existence a finite time ago required a choice on the
part of the cause. Once there was nothing, then suddenly there was
something. An act of the will on the part of the cause is what made the
difference between there being nothing and suddenly there being
something. The capability of making willing choices is a property of
persons. Therefore, the cause is personal. Furthermore, it is a
commonly known fact that causes must be greater than their effects.
Personality is greater than non-personality. Therefore, the Creator of
this world must be personal because He is the cause of personality.
Fifth, the Creator must be omnipotent in order to bring the
universe into existence from nothing.
Sixth, the anthropic principle indicates that the Creator is
loving. Scientific discoveries have revealed the intricate "fine-tuning
of the universe, which bespeaks intelligent design." Stephen Hawking
wrote "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been
smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the
universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present
state."[53] Slightly faster than the critical rate and matter would have
dispersed too rapidly to allow stars and galaxies to form. Hugh Ross
notes that "the universe, our galaxy, and our solar system exhibit more
than sixty characteristics that require exquisite fine-tuning for their
very existence, and also for the existence of life."[54]
Seventh, "since he brought the universe into being without any
antecedently determining conditions and fine-tuned it with a precession
that literally defies comprehension, he must be both free and
unimaginable intelligent."[55] In other words, the Creator must be
sovereignly free and omniscient.
It is these seven core properties which constitute the center of
what we mean when we say "God." Thus, it seems that philosophical
analysis confirms what we had suspected--the universe was caused by God.
As Craig says in his article "The Existence of God and the Beginning of
the Universe," "On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be
uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial ... Moreover, it
would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect
in time."[56]
One may object that it is invalid to conclude from this all that
there is only one cause of the universe--i.e., one God. However, the
inference to one God as the only cause of the universe "seems justified
in light of the principle, commonly accepted in science, that one should
not multiply causes beyond necessity. One is justified in inferring only
causes such as are necessary to explain the effect in question; positing
any more would be gratuitous. Since the universe is a single effect
originating in the Big Bang event, we have no grounds for inferring a
plurality of causes."[57]
A Few Remaining Objections
In objection to the premise that whatever begins to exist has a
cause, some point to the quantum phenomenon of particle pair production
where it appears as if particles come into existence uncaused. However,
this would provide "no analogy to something's coming into being out of
nothing. ...all that actually occurs is conversion of energy into matter
or vice versa. It is not the creation of matter out of nothing, but the
conversion of already existing energy into material form."[58]
Second, it may simply be that there really is an ultimate cause
behind the apparent indeterminacy, but we are simply unaware of what the
cause is. Third, even if quantum mechanics shows that there are events
at the subatomic level that do not have causes, it does not follow from
this that "events above the subatomic level do not have causes...When an
apple falls something caused it. When an event as massive as the big
bang occurred, something caused it. It is an unwarranted extrapolation
to argue from the microlevel to the macrolevel."[59]
But what if one argues that the origin of the universe was at the
microlevel? First, it should be pointed out again that our knowledge of
the quantum level may be incomplete such that there really are causes, we
are just not aware of what they are. Second, "not all philosophers and
physicists are agreed as to how to interpret quantum mechanics....in the
absence of a clear consensus on quantum interpretation, it seems
reasonable to hold to the well-established law of cause and effect."[60]
Third, we have already seen that it is false to claim that quantum
effects occur from nothing because they space (which is something) in
order to occur. Said Fred Hoyle, "The physical properties of the vacuum
would still be needed, and this would be something."[61] The universe,
on the other hand, came into existence from absolutely
nothing--space-time itself was created at its beginning.
The other main objection to the need for the Big Bang to have a
cause is that, if there was no time before it, it could not therefore
have a prior cause. The answer to this, however, is what is
called simultaneous causation--the case then cause A and effect B occur
together, at the same time, instead of the effect being before the
cause. An everyday example of this is a heavy item resting on a cushion
being the cause of a depression in the cushion. "We should therefore say
that the cause of the origin of the universe is causally prior to the Big
Bang, though not temporally prior to the Big Bang."[62]
So when we speak of God existing "prior" to the first moment of
time, "we do not mean temporally prior to time, but outside time
altogether....[we are] not treating God as a thing existing at a temporal
location."[63]
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have seen the overwhelming scientific and
philosophical evidence that the universe had a beginning, and that it
therefore required a cause--a Cause who fits the basic core of what we
mean by God. The words of Robert Jastrow are a fitting conclusion to our
investigation: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the
power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the
mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he
pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians
who have been sitting there for centuries."[64]
Notes
1. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and
Apologetics, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 124.
2. Craig, p. 93.
3. Craig, p. 93.
4. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 1987), p. 31.
5. The first three steps of this argument are reproduced from Craig, p.
98.
6. Craig, pp. 95-97.
7. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (W.W. Norton &
Company, INC, 2nd edition, 1992), p. 103.
8. Donald Goldsmith, Einstein's Greatest Blunder?, (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), pp. 53-55.
9. Craig, p. 101.
10. Fred Heeren, Show Me God, (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight
Publications, 1995).
11. Heeren, p. 109; Goldsmith, pp. 66-75.
12. Jastrow, p. 70.
13. Jastrow gives a chart on page 73 which illustrates how amazingly
precise the match actually is.
14. Jastrow, p. 81.
15. Craig, "The Existance of God and the Beginning of the Universe," p.
7. See also Jastrow, p. 70.
16. Barry Parker, The Vindication of the Big Bang, (New York, NY:
Plenum Press, 1993), p. 259.
17. Harold Fritzsch, The Creation of Matter, (New York, NY: Basic
Books, 1984), p. 250.
18. Craig, p. 101, quoting J. Richard Gott, et al., "Will the Universe
Expand Forever?" Scientific American (March 1976): 65. Emphasis
added.
19. Craig, pp. 101-102, quoting P.C.W. Davies, "Space-time
Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, eds. J.T.
Frase, N. Lawrence, and D. Park (Berlin: Springer, 1978), pp. 78-79.
Emphasis added.
20. Craig, p. 102, quoting John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxrford University Press,
1986), p. 442. Emphasis added.
21. Christopher Isham, "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process" in
Physics, Philosophy and Theology, A Common Quest for
Understanding, eds. R.J. Russell, W.R. Stoeger, and G.V. Coyne, p.
378.
22. Jastrow, p. 68.
23. Jastrow, p. 89.
24. Craig, p. 102.
25. Jastrow, p. 14.
26. Craig, p. 103.
27. Craig, p. 104.
28. Jastrow, p. 25.
29. Goldsmith, p. 120. See also Jastrow, p. 102.
30. Fritzsch, p. 241.
31. Fritzsch, p. 244.
32. Fritzsch, p. 243.
33. Craig, p. 105, citing Joseph Sil, "Cosmology Back to the
Beginning," Nature 356 (1992): 742.
34. Goldsmith, p. 123.
35. Craig, p. 106, quoting "Dynamical Parameters," p. 144.
36. See Isham, "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," pp.
385-387.
37. Craig, p. 107.
38. Quentin Smith, "Two Ways to Prove Atheism," p. 2.
39. Smith, p. 3.
40. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 136.
41. Hawking, pp. 138-139.
42. Hawking, p. 139.
43. Craig, "Cosmos and Creator," Origins & Design: 17:2, p. 4.
44. "Cosmos and Creator," p. 4.
45. Craig, p. 115.
46. Moreland, p. 35.
47. Craig, p. 115.
48. Craig, p. 116, citing Silk, Big Bang, pp. 311-312.
49. Moreland, p. 36.
50. Craig, p. 116.
51. Jastrow, p. 85.
52. Jastrow, p. 106.
53. Hawking, cited in Heeren, p. 328.
54. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time, p. 127.
55. Craig, p. 119.
56. "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe," p. 10.
57. Craig, p. 120.
58. Craig, "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe," p.
9.
59. Moreland, p. 38.
60. Moreland, p. 39.
61. Hereen, p. 93.
62. Craig, "Creation and Big Bang Cosmology," p. 2.
63. Moreland, p. 34.
64. Jastrow, p. 107.
MP
Go back to Contend for the Faith.
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page