The universe is not eternal as it
was once believed. The universe had a beginning.
Since the universe is composed of
space, time and matter, it is reasonable to believe that space, time and matter
did not exist before the origin of the universe.
So what caused space, time and
matter?
Secular
scientists seem to be ignorant.
An article in www.forbes.com entitled Did
Time Have A Beginning? professes ignorance
about the origin of time despite a lengthy thematic pontification:1 (Emphasis
Mine)
Even though we
can trace our cosmic history all the way back to the earliest stages of the hot
Big Bang, that isn't enough to answer the question of how (or if) time began.
Going even earlier, to the end-stages of cosmic inflation, we can learn how the
Big Bang was set up and began, but we have no observable information about what
occurred prior to that. The final fraction-of-a-second of inflation is where
our knowledge ends.
Thousands of
years after we laid out the three major possibilities for how time began — as
having always existed, as having begun a finite duration ago in the past, or as
being a cyclical entity — we are no
closer to a definitive answer. Whether time is finite, infinite, or
cyclical is not a question that we have enough information within our
observable Universe to answer. Unless we figure out a new way to gain
information about this deep, existential question, the answer may forever be beyond the limits of what is knowable.
Why is a portion of the scientific
world clueless? This is the problem.
These
scientists do not want to presuppose the existence of an uncaused first cause,
namely God. “Many scientists today conduct their research based on their
presupposition or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world—that
which can be seen around us—and thus they do not accept that any ultimate Cause
exists…,” says an article on the website of the Institute For Creation Research.2
If they presuppose the existence of
the uncaused first cause, then sheer logical
implications would render God’s existence:3
Applying the
principles of cause and effect, it is clear that scientific logic indicates
that the Cause for the universe in which we live must trace back to an infinite
First Cause of all things. Random motion or primeval particles cannot produce
intelligent thought, nor can inert molecules generate spiritual worship.
· The First Cause of limitless space must be
infinite.
· The First Cause of endless time must be eternal.
· The First Cause of boundless energy must be
omnipotent.
· The First Cause of universal interrelationships
must be omnipresent.
· The First Cause of infinite complexity must be
omniscient.
· The First Cause of spiritual values must be
spiritual.
· The First Cause of human responsibility must be
volitional.
· The First Cause of human integrity must be
truthful.
· The First Cause of human love must be loving.
· The First Cause of life must be living.
We would
conclude from the law of cause-and-effect that the First Cause of all things
must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, spiritual,
volitional, truthful, loving, living Being!
But set aside the futility of the
secular scientists.
Our space-time-material universe had a beginning.
J. Warner Wallace of Cold Case
Christianity elucidates this fact:4
Scientists have
known this for many years, and most consider it to be an important piece of
evidence demonstrating that the universe had a beginning. To illustrate the
strength of this evidence, imagine drawing a random assortment of dots on a
balloon and slowly inflating it. As the balloon grows and expands in size, the
dots will begin to separate from one another. Astronomers observe something
similar when studying our universe. Stars and galaxies are moving away from one
another, just like the dots on the balloon.
As astronomers
and cosmologists imagine rewinding the cosmic clock, the most reasonable
inference is that the expansion of the universe (like the expansion of the
balloon) had a beginning.
In addition to
the expansion of the universe, scientists point to the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, the abundance of Helium in the universe, and the existence of
Cosmic Background Radiation to support their conclusion that the universe had a
beginning (I’ve written much more about this scientific evidence in God’s Crime
Scene). Based on this evidence, most cosmologists and astrophysicists embrace
what has become known as the Standard Cosmological Model for the origin of the
universe, commonly referred to as “Big Bang” Cosmology.
According to
this model of cosmic origins, everything we observe in the universe – all
space, time and matter – the very attributes we ascribe to the natural realm –
came into existence when our universe first began.
Think about that
for a minute. Before our universe came into existence, nothing existed.
Nothing. No time, no matter and no space. Nothing. This singular truth about
the universe exposes an even greater mystery.
To consider an ex nihilo (out of nothing)
origin to our universe is absurd. J. Warner Wallace continues:5
The
long-established (and accepted) Principle of Causality dictates that whatever
begins to exist requires a cause. If our universe came into existence from
nothing – and that certainly appears to be the case – it had a cause, and not
just any cause will do.
The cause of our
universe cannot be spatial, temporal or material, given that space, time and
matter didn’t exist (according to scientific discoveries) until the universe
came into existence. Whatever the first-cause, it cannot be described using the
attributes we typically ascribe to the natural realm. It could rightfully be
described as “extra-natural.” Or “supra-natural.” Or even “supernatural.”
As the rate of
expansion in our universe is now being debated and calculated by cosmologists
and astrophysicists, a greater mystery looms. What kind of all-powerful,
non-spatial, non-temporal, non-material (extra-natural) cause can account for
the universe we live in? What kind of first cause can also account for the
fine-tuning we see in the cosmos, the origin of life, the appearance of design
in biology, our experience of consciousness and free-agency, the existence of
objective moral truth, and the objective standard by which we judge and
identify evil?
Scientists believe in a Big Bang singularity, “Based upon
Einstein's work, Belgian cosmologist Rev. Georges Lemaître published a paper in
1927 that proposed the universe started out as a singularity and that the Big
Bang led to its expansion [source: Soter and Tyson].”6
It is at this singularity, space and
time came into existence, according to the Standard
Big Bang Model. In this model, the universe is said to have originated ex nihilo so much so that before the
initial singularity, nothing existed.
No space, no time, nothing!
William Lane Craig, in his scholarly
article entitled The Ultimate Question of
Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe considers the various
origin-of-universe models, namely, the Standard Big Bang model, Steady State
model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models, Chaotic Inflationary model,
and the Quantum Gravity models. He then debunks the ex nihilo origin of the universe and asserts the existence of God as the cause of space,
time and matter:7
Beyond the Big
Bang
The discovery
that the universe is not eternal in the past but had a beginning has profound
metaphysical implications. For it implies that the universe is not necessary in
its existence but rather has its ground in a transcendent, metaphysically
necessary being. The only way of avoiding this conclusion would be to deny
Leibniz's conviction that anything that exists must have a reason for its
existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or else in an external
ground. Reflecting upon the current situation, P. C. W. Davies muses,
'What caused the
big bang?' . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond
space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to
regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don't
have too much choice. Either . . . something outside of the physical world . .
. or . . . an event without a cause. [55]
The problem with
saying that the Big Bang is an event without a cause is that it entails that
the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, which seems
metaphysically absurd. Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider
remonstrates, "If taken seriously, the initial singularity is in head-on
collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding
line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, out of nothing
nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which
has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely
well-advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute
origin." [56]
The
Supernaturalist Alternative
If we go the
route of postulating some causal agency beyond space and time as being
responsible for the origin of the universe, then conceptual analysis enables us
to recover a number of striking properties which must be possessed by such an
ultra-mundane being. For as the cause of space and time, this entity must
transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at
least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless
and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness
implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at
least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions. Ockham's Razor
will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond
necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe
without any material cause.
Finally, and
most remarkably, such a transcendent cause is plausibly to be taken to be
personal. As Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne points out, there are two
types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and
initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their
volitions. [57] A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific
explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it can be
accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation. Moreover, the personhood
of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality,
since the only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either
minds or abstract objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal
relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must
be of the order of mind. This same conclusion is also implied by the fact that
we have in this case the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If
the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and
sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without
its effect. For if the necessary and sufficient conditions of the effect are
timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well. The only way for the
cause to be timeless and changeless but for its effect to originate de novo a
finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to
bring about an effect without antecedent determining conditions. Thus, we are
brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its
personal creator.
Endnotes:
1https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/07/does-time-have-a-beginning
2https://www.icr.org/first-cause
3https://www.icr.org/transcendent
4https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-latest-discovery-about-the-universe-points-to-an-even-greater-mystery/
5Ibid.
6https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm
7 https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-ultimate-question-of-origins-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe/
Websites last accessed on 21st
October 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment