The Universe Came Out Of Nothing: True Or False?

            Big Bang Cosmology is the most widely accepted explanation for the beginning of our universe. However, some atheists claim that our universe came out of nothing and that quantum mechanics provides an explanation for the same.

Did Our Universe Come Out Of Nothing?

            Atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss’ book A Universe from Nothing (published in 2012) posits science’s explanation for the origin of our universe from nothing and that God is unnecessary to understand the origin of our universe.

            Krauss’ posits the origin of the universe from nothing, “…we're now at a point where we can plausibly argue that a universe full of stuff came from a very simple beginning, the simplest of all beginnings: nothing.”¹ He goes on to add, “I don't think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms might cause this to happen…We don't know how something can come from nothing, but we do know some plausible ways that it might.

            But I am certainly claiming a lot more than just that. That it's possible to create particles from no particles is remarkable—that you can do that with impunity, without violating the conservation of energy and all that, is a remarkable thing.”²

            So Krauss’ claim is two-fold:

            1. It is possible to create particles from nothing. (Hence, he alludes to a beginning of our universe from nothing.)

            2. However, physics has not definitively shown how something could come from nothing.

            At the outset, these claims seem to contradict each other.

            If we were to combine both these statements into one, then this is what we understand of Krauss’ claim: We could suppose that our universe came from nothing because it is theoretically possible, and physics does explain how particles could be created from nothing. But physics has not definitively shown how something could come from nothing. 

            So my conclusion as a layman is: until physics definitively shows how something can come from nothing, I will still believe that something cannot come from nothing. Hence, our universe could not have come from nothing.

Quantum Mechanics Does Not Explain The Origin Of Universe From Nothing

            Interestingly, some scientists claim that the nothing that Krauss speaks of is not literally nothing!

            David Albert is a theoretical physicist who has written a book, along with numerous articles on quantum mechanics. He claims that the term nothing does not mean literally nothing, “Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right…And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. …”³

            Another prominent scientist, George Ellis considered as one of the leading theorists in cosmology, who has authored a book on quantum theory quashes Krauss when he was asked whether Krauss was right to claim that physics has solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing:⁴

Certainly not. He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.

Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true. Well, you can’t get any evidence about what existed before space and time came into being. Above all he believes that these mathematically based speculations solve thousand year old philosophical conundrums, without seriously engaging those philosophical issues. The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.

And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions.

            So science is yet to definitively prove that our universe came out of nothing.

            Lawrence Krauss’s book was published in 2012. Can we be sure that science is yet to definitively prove that our universe came from nothing?

            Dr. William Lane Craig in November 2018, while answering a question Did the Universe Begin with Nothing? affirms the necessity for a cause for the beginning of our universe: [Emphasis mine]⁵

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe did not begin with nothing in the sense that at first there was nothing and then the universe came into being. Here a little philosophy of language is helpful:  The word “nothing” is not a singular term referring to something. Rather it is a quantifier, a term of universal negation, just like “nobody,” “nowhere,” “no one,” etc.  It means “not anything.”

So when cosmologists say that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang, they do NOT mean that there was something prior to it, and that was a state of nothingness. Rather they mean that there was not anything prior to the Big Bang.

So time and the universe start with the first physical state of affairs, before which there was not anything. This is, in fact, the view that you quite rightly want to affirm. The question is, what is causally (not temporally) prior to that first physical state? I have in my published work given reasons why it is not plausible that that first physical state came to be uncaused.

In saying that the universe came into being at the first moment of its existence, I am not presupposing a prior state of nothing but rather affirming that the fact of the universe’s beginning to exist is a tensed fact…on a tensed theory of time, according to which temporal becoming is real, the need for a cause of the first state of the universe becomes, I think, patent because that is the moment at which the universe comes into being.

            Furthermore in 2019, Dr. Craig in response to a question What Is the Universe Expanding into? affirms that the atheist ought to explain how the universe came into being without a cause. Thus he implies that the atheist scientists are still clueless about defending the notion that our universe came into being from nothing:⁶

According the (sic) Big Bang theory, the universe is not expanding into anything…So as you trace the expansion back in time, you eventually come to a place where all distances shrink to zero, and space disappears (or begins to exist). It’s not that the universe disappears at that point, and the empty space in which it was expanding is still there. No, there is nothing prior to that point because it is space itself which is expanding. Just as there is not anything prior to the universe’s beginning, so there is not anything into which it is expanding. The difficulty for the atheist, then, is to explain how the universe could come into existence without a cause.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

²Ibid.

³https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

⁴https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will/

⁵https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/did-the-universe-begin-with-nothing/

⁶https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P600/what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/

Websites last accessed on 5^th June 2020.

Did Space, Time & Matter Have A Beginning?

            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 21^st October 2019.