The Big Bang: Evidence from Cosmology (part 3)

 *** I would strongly advise reading at least part 1, and hopefully part 2, of the cosmological evidence if this is to make any sense!

"The essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of energy." -Astronomer Robert Jastrow

TODAY'S QUESTION: If the Universe had a cause, what do scientists believe that cause to be? And does this imply the existence of God?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (final part)

Step one: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (Verified in Post 1)

 Step two: The universe had a beginning. (Verified in Post 2)

Step three: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Alright, let's dive into what exactly this means for the universe itself.

     Given that whatever begins to exist must have a cause and that the universe indeed has a beginning point, there must be some sort of transcendent cause for the origin of our universe. As even atheist Kai Nelsen put it, "Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang...and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing it just happened'. You would not accept that." And he's right. Logically, there must have been a cause for universe as well. 

      When interviewed about the Big Ban, Nobel Prize winning scientist Arno Penzias said that "The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole." I personally find this very interesting and incredible that the Bible and the Big Bang speak towards the same creation process, minor details aside. 

Science and faith point towards the same beginning. However, can we take it a step further? Can science point towards the same Creator as well? (Getting to the good stuff now!)

    Let's see what PHD and THD William Craig has to say about this. 

    Referring to what we can deduce from the Big Bang regarding a cause, he says "There are several qualities we can identify. A cause of time and space must be an uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power. And that is the core concept of God". 

     This just made a BIG jump- let's back up and deal with an objection readers may have. The biggest being if everything has a cause, how did God become exempt? Didn't something have to create God? It's a good question and also one that can be answered quite easily if we take the concept back to the first part of Kalam's argument to which they are referring- whatever begins to exist must have a cause. The premise states that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, not that everything has a cause. There is not a reputable philospher who would dispute that.  If God is eternal and timeless, always existing, without a beginning point, he would not need a cause because he is beyond the domain of time. With no time, cause and effect do not play a role. (If you have more questions on this, I would suggest comments on the first post- we go into this topic).

     The Big Bang points to a cause that must transcend our own domain of time and space. Because of this, the cause cannot scientifically be a physical reality. It must be nonphysical or immaterial. There are only two types of things that can be timeless and immaterial- one would be abstract objects, like numbers or mathematical entities. The other would be a mind. Abstract objects cannot cause anything to happen, but minds can- so it makes sense that the universe is the product of an unembodied mind that brought it into existence.

    Here's an analogy William Craig used to illustrate why the cause of the universe can be thought to be personal.

    "Water freezes at zero degrees centigrade. If the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity past. It would be impossible for the water to just begin to freeze a finite time ago. In other words, once the sufficent conditions were met- that is, the temperature was low enough- then the consequence would be that water wuld automatically freeze.

    So if the universe were just a mechanical consequence that would occur whenever sufficent conditions were met, and the sufficent conditions were met eternally (the cause must be eternal scientifically), then it would exist from eternity past. The effect would be co-eternal with the cause.

   How do you explain then, the origin of a finite universe from a timeless cause?

     I can only think of one explanation: that the cause of the universe is a personal agent who has freedom of will. He can create a new effect without any antecedent determining conditions. He could decide to say 'Let there be light', and the universe would spring into existence."

   British physicist Edmund Whitaker made a similar observation, he said that "There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity?"

   What all of this is saying, if you are having a hard time tracking, is that we know that whatever caused the Big Bang transcends our universe, meaning it transcends time and space, meaning the cause is eternal. If the universe was just a mechanical accident, that came into being when certain conditions were met, then because we know the cause to be eternal, the conditions would always be met... the universe would have to be eternal as well. But it is not. It had a beginning point that was no different, no more special than any moment in time. If all the conditions were always scientifically capable of being met, but weren't until a certain moment, this shows that the cause is more than just another scientific form of matter.. the cause can think. The cause came from a Creator.

     From all of the information we have looked at from cosmology throughout the past 3 posts- scientifically, mathematically and philosophically, the evidence most persuasively points towards the conclusion of a personal creator.  It's very interesting to think that a hundred years ago, when scientists had not yet discovered the Big Bang and thought the universe was eternal, people of faith had to dispute science with their belief that the universe was indeed created a finite period of time ago. And now, science points towards that same belief. As a Christian I find it really cool to be able to stand confidently within biblical thought, knowing that it is in line with mainstream astrophysics and cosmology. Christians often argue that a skeptic cannot be argued into faith, and as compelling as the Kalam argument is, one must still wonder if it can be enough to change the mind of the most critical, the most scientific? It has the potential to only bring up more argument. But if someone were truly open minded, could the case of cosmology be enough to prompt a personal verdict for God? I think so.  I would even say it takes more faith to believe in absolute nothingness as even science points towards otherwise, and it does so even more as you dive into other areas of it.

   But if you do not agree, there are several other lines of evidence, and I of course will be going into them. The next section I will be posting will move from cosmology into phsyics, where we will look at the fine tuning of the laws and parameters of physics. This is personally very convincing for me of God and I hope you read on, regardless of belief, to at least learn something new. I appreciate your time and please please please feel free to ask questions! I've posted some more information I felt people would ask about below as well if you'd like to check that out.

  Anyways, thanks for reading! Next, onto physics!

Objections & Answers:

     Objection 1: What if the Creator created the universe, and then ceased to exist? 

     After all, an argument like the one we just explored can only prove the existence of a first cause in the distant past. It cannot establish the present existence of a first cause. Or can it? It is very plausible that this being would still exist because he transcends the universe, and therefore the laws of nature, which he created. It would therefore seem unlikely that anything in the laws of nature could extinguish him. (pg 111).  And, as a side note, Christians believe that this Creator has not remained silent but has revealed himself in the person Jesus Christ, who we will later historically study later on as well. Sure, the Kalam argument cannot prove everything. That's ok. We're free to look around for other evidence that this creator still exists today. Did he really raise Jesus from the dead? Does he answer prayers? Etc, etc. The burden of proof should be on the person claiming he did once exist, but he no longer does, as scientifically, a cause above time and laws of nature would have no reason to cease existing.

     Objection 2: What if the Universe did not really have a beginning? Aren't there any other explanations besides the Big Bang?

     Many atheist scientists find the implications of the Big Bang disturbing, perturbed because the laws of physics can't account for the creation event and irritated because the beginning of the universe necessitates a creator which is not always tasteful to the scientific mind. The Big Bang is accepted by virtually all scientists and supported by the latest research. It is taught to college students as fact and in text books as the true beginning of the universe. 

    However, yes, there are other theories- but none have been scientifically validated.  I'll list them here though so if you'd like to do personal research you can, and also feel free to ask questions if you have them and I can go into more detail. The first if the Steady State Theory proposed in 1948.  However, it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, which says that matter is neither created or destoryed, and never secured a single piece of experimental verification. It basically states that the universe was expanding and new matter came into being out of nothing and fills the void. To be honest, I do not understand the logic of this theory very well, its not really regarded by scientists.

   Another theory is the Oscillating Model of the Universe. It eliminates the need for an absolute beginning by suggesting that the universe expands and then collapses in a never ending cycle. However, this has been proven incorrect as well. In order for this theory to work, the universe would have to contract at some point. Einstein found that the universe is expanding, and it indeed is. The universe would have to be dense enough to generate sufficient gravity that would crunch it back. However, the universe is not dense enough- studies have consistently shown that taking all matter of the universe into account, we are far below the density that would be needed. Recent tests, run by 5 different labs in 1998 calculated with 95% certainty that the universe will expand forever. So that kinda puts a nail in the coffin for this theory.

    Another theory is Edward Tyron's that basically states that our universe is part of a mother universe that through quantum fluctuations, discussed in post 1, has baby universes and we are one of them. This model hasn't survived because of a few things. First, as we said earlier, quantum fluctuations would still require an explanation for how they came into being as they aren't nothing- they are seas of energy and still demand a cause. Second of all, if the mother universe was eternal, a universe would have formed at each point... meaning the universes would be running into each other and coalescing until he entire quantum vaccum would be filled with an infinitely old universe, which contradicts scientific observations.

    A last alternative theory comes from Stephen Hawking. He says, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator." However, Hawking's newest model portrays our universe in an upside down cone shape, except instead of coming to a point (representing a singularity, or a single beginning point), it comes to a rounded edge. If you trace backwards in time  and instead of coming to a point, you would simply follow the curve and find yourself heading forward in time again. His model still points to a beginning of the universe,just without a singularity. The universe is still finite in its past. If you go into the mathematics of his model that would allow a beginning without a singularity, you see that Hawking uses imaginary numbers (multiples of the square root of negative one). In this model, using imaginary numbers has the effect of turning time into a dimension of space. The problem is is that imaginary numbers are computational devices- if you want real, physical results, one must convert the imaginary numbers to real ones. And if that is done, the singularity reappears. In Hawking's book with Robert Penrose he concedes this fact, saying he doesn't pretend to be describing reality, but using a mathematical way of modeling the universe so that the singularity does not appear. 

   The Big Bang is the most validated theory and is supported by science fully, but if you have any questions please let me know. 

  

    

The Big Bang: Evidence from Cosmology (part 2)

 *All information is derived from the research found in the novel The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, and framed accordingly.This specific entry contains information from chapter 5.


"Set aside the many competing explanations of the Big Bang; something made an entire cosmos out of nothing. It is this realization- that something transcendant started it all- which has hard-science types... using terms like 'miracle'." - Journalist Gregg Easterbrook

TODAY'S QUESTION: WE KNOW THAT SOMETHING CAUSED THE UNIVERSE  ( PART 1). HOW SURE SCIENTIFICALLY ARE WE THAT IT ALL STARTED WITH THE BIG BANG?

  Last time we left off analyzing evidence for whether or not the universe needed to have a transcendant cause in order for it to come into existence. We framed this within the first part of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, along with looking at evidence from quantum physics to show indeed, everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Today we will continue with looking at the rest of Kalam's Argument and see what this means for our universe itself!

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (continued)

Step one: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (Explored & verified in previous post).

Step two: The universe had a beginning.

Step three: Therefore, the universe had a cause.

  Alright, first let's take a look at whether or not we can prove step two with mathematics and science.

Step two: Mathematical Evidence 

    We know that the universe we live in is not eternal and must have had a beginning because of the number of absurdities that would arise within our time and space if there were an infinite number of things. An infinite past would involve an infinite number of events, meaning that the past cannot be infinite. Here's an example to more clearly show that that statement means. (As explained by PHD William Craig, pg 103).

     "Imagine I had an infinite number of marbles in my possession, and that I wanted to give you some. In fact, suppose I wanted to give you an infinite number of marbles. One way I could do that would be to give you the entire pile of marbles. In that case I would have zero marbles left for myself.

    However, another way to do it would be to give you all of the odd numbered marbles. Then I would still have an infinity left over for myself, and you would have an infinity too. You'd have just as many as I would- and, in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd ad even! Or another approach would be for me to give you all of the marbles numbered four and higher. That way, you would have an infinity of marbles, but I would only have three marbles left.

  ... The notion of an actual infinite number of things leads to contradictory results. In the first case, in which I gave you all the marbles, infinity minus infinity is zero; in the second case in which I gave you all the odd-numbered marbles, infinity minus infinity is infinity; and in the third case in which I gave you all the marbles numbered four and greater, infinity minus infinity is three. In each case, we have subtracted the identical number from the identical number, but we have come up with nonidentical results."Mathematicians are actually forbidden from doing subtraction and division in transfinite arithmetic for this reason and only use infinite numbers in the conceptual realm.

   The Gist: The idea of actual infinity is just conceptual and is not descriptive of what can happen in the real world, in our world and dimension of time. (Infinity could be a reality if we were in a different type of dimension of time, but that's a whole other story- in our universe, an infinite past is not possible). If you substitute 'past events' for 'marbles', you can see the absurdities that would result. The universe, therefore, must have had a beginning. (If still confused, google "impossibility of transversing the infinite").

    Hold up! Some of you are probably thinking, hey, then how can God be infinitely old? Wouldn't all of this reasoning rule out God then? In short, no. Time and space are creations of God, which began at the Big Bang. If one were to rewind to the beginning of time itself, there is simply eternity there, and by that I mean timelessness. God, who is eternal, is timeless in his being. God transcends time, he's beyond time, and because of this he did not endure through an infinite amount of time because he is timeless. His domain transcends our dimension of time. Once he creates the universe, our universe, he could enter time... but that's a different topic altogether.

    So now that mathematically we have shown that in our dimension of time, an infinite past is simply not possible, let's see what science has to say regarding there being a beginning of the universe.

Scientific Evidence 

     Albert Einstein in 1915 developed his general theory of relativity and began applying it to the universe as a whole. He was shocked that it didn't allow for a static universe, and instead, according to his equations, showed that the universe must be expanding. This meant that if you went backward in time, the universe would shrink back to a single origin before which it didn't exist. It was named the 'Big Bang' by astronomer Fred Hoyle. 

Empirical Evidence to prove an expanding universe: 

• 1929: American astronomer Edward Hubble discovered through light coming to us from distant galaxies that all galaxies are moving away from us. (Light appears redder when moving away from you, and bluer when moving towards you. Galaxies were and are "red shifting". Google red and blue shifting if confused!) If all galaxies were continually red shifting, this mean that the universe is literally flying apart at enormous velocities. Imagine we are all little raisins on a cake, and as the cake keeps expanding, every raisin is getting farther and farther apart. That is what is happening to our universe- its expanding!
• 1940s: George Gamow predicted that if the Big Bang was an actual event that really happened, the background temperature of the universe should be just  a few degrees above absolute zero; this would be a relic from a very very early stage of our universe. And guess what? In 1965, two scientists discovered the universe's background radiation, and it was only 3.7 degrees above absolute zero. There is no explanation for this, except for the fact that it is a sign from a very early and incredibly dense state of the universe (which the universe would indeed be if it were more squished together, to simply put it), which was predicted by the Big Bang model.

• Another piece of evidence that the Big Bang is the origin of light matter. Heavy elements, such as carbon and iron, are made through a process where they are synthesized in the interior of stars and then exploded into supernovae into space (side note: I had to write a 7 page essay on this process for my astronomy final... good times....). Anyways, they go through a lot to be created, and we can explain and test this. However, very very light elements, such as deuterium, cannot have been created in the interior of stars because an even more powerful furnace would be needed to create them. There is only one way they could have been made - when the Big Bang itself happened, and temperatures were at billions of degrees. There is no other explanation.

       Scientific evidence has now secured the fact that, yes, the Big Bang did happen. Stephen Hawking himself has said that "time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang". 

      The Big Bang  does not appear to have been a chaotic event that was disorderly, either. The universe we see today, and life itself, is very very dependent on a set of highly special initial conditions. If it had been any different in even the smallest of ways, our universe would be massively different as well. It appears to have been fine tuned for the existence of intelligent life with an insane complexity and precision. We will go into this later with evidence from physics and biology and all of that, but as for today, the goal was to simply show that the universe indeed had a beginning. We have proven step two of the argument. 

   I hope you will read on to step three, for it shows that if the universe had a beginning and everything that has a beginning must have a cause, that the universe must've had a cause... and what exactly can we prove this cause to be? And trust me, that's where things really start getting interesting.

  If you have any questions at all, please please please feel free to ask or comment! Thank you for reading!

 

  

  

 

The Big Bang: Evidence from Cosmology (part 1)

 *All information is derived from the research found in the novel The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, and framed accordingly.This specific entry contains information from chapter 5.

    "In three minutes, ninety-eight percent of all of the matter there is or ever will be has been produced. We have a universe. It is a place of the most wondrous and gratifying possibility, and beautiful, too. And it was all done in about the time it takes to make a sandwich." - Bill Bryson

TODAY'S QUESTION: DID THE UNIVERSE HAVE A CAUSE? AND CAN WE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE IT?

Where did the universe come from? How did it begin? The bible states that the answer is "God created the heavens and the earth", commanding light into existence and then creating the rest of the universe. It seems to be a logical and good idea to start this investigation at the beginning of everything to see if science points towards a Creator or not. And so we will look at what cosmologists, scientists who devote their lives to studying the origin of the universe, have to say about the subject.

       Scientists have now traced the development of the universe all the way back the first 1/10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second, which is as far back as they believe they can peer. From this we now know that in the beginning, there was an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle. This matter consisted of negatively charged electrons, positively charged positrons, neutrinos, and interestingly, photons. In the beginning, " The universe was filled with light" (pg 94) says scientist Bill Bryson. ( I personally find this really cool.. does "and God said 'Let there be light'" strike anyone else?)

     However, the most compelling question is what caused the universe to suddenly spring into existence? Science can explain what has happened since the Big Bang, or the First Cause, (matter gathers into dense regions, gravitational contraction of clouds and protostars create galaxies and stars and so forth and so on), but do scientists have any theories as to what caused the first cause?

    The author of "The Case for the Creator" researches this, starting with William Lane Craig, PHD & THD, a widely published expert of cosmology who will walk us through the Kalam cosmological argument (google him if you want, he's written tons of interesting stuff!). 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (part 1)

This argument is millenium old and originated with a man named al-Ghazali. Paired with scienctific evidence of the Big Bang, many scientists find it to be a convincing proponet of God's existence. It is framed in three steps. Today we'll just go through step one for the sake of time and length - I will continue with the argument in subsequent posts.

Step one: Whatever  begins to exist has a cause. (What are your thoughts? True, untrue?)

                If this statement is found to be true, then we can move on to step two. However, let's take a second to observe all possibilities and test the validity of objections as well.

         The atheistic viewpoint maintains that 'the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, for nothing' (Quentin Smith). However, empirically, it is almost impossible to dispute that if something has a beginning, it could have not popped out of absolute nothingness without a cause to bring it to existence. Whatever you believe that cause may be. This is a statement science has verified over and over again. As one scientist had said regarding the "from nothing, by nothing" viewpoint, "Nobody worries that while he's away at work, say, a horse might pop into being, uncaused out of nothing, in his living room, and be there defiling the carpet..these things..they never happen... it simply amazes me that anyone can think this is the most rational view". (pg 99).

      An Objection: If anyone reading is familiar with quantum physics, you know that it has shown us that strange, unexpected things happen at a subatomic level. The rules of classical science are often violated here, and some say that perhaps the universe apparated from something known as a 'quantum quirk', a vacuum fluctuation that would allow things to materialize, although they tend to vanish back into the vacuum quite quickly. One objection to the Big Bang having a cause is that through a vacuum fluctuation, our universe just kind of happened. As scientist Edward Tyron once said, perhaps, "our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time". Is this scientifically valid?

        Response to the objection:  In short, not really. The particles that are created in this 'quantum quirks' do NOT come out of nothing. (In fact, these particles that are created are theoretical entities.. science has not yet made it clear if they actually exist yet are not, and are used as of now for theoretical constructs). Anyways, supposing these particles do exist, they do not come from nothing. A "quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vaccum- that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vaccuum" (pg 101) - PHD & THD cosmologist William Craig. 

     In other words, this 'quantum quirk' is not an example of something coming into being without a cause. The energy in the vacuum, which is a verifiable and scientifically proven substance, is the cause of these particles. All this objection has done is pushed back the issue of creation - now you must account for how the energy within the vacuum came into being. Scientifically you cannot use the laws of quantum physics to explain the origin of quantum physics itself. On this topic, Craig stated that "You need something transcendant that's beyond the domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we're back to the origins question" (pg 101). 

    Even the famous atheist David Hume wrote once that "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause". Historically, scientists have not supported this either. The scientific confirmation for the beginning of the universe in the twentieth century has led us all to ask - did something cause the universe, or was it truly an accident?

    What do you think? I personally believe that the Big Bang is an undeniable piece of evidence that some single, focused point of energy that transcends the domain we are in created the universe. I believe yes, the universe did have a cause (God). After analyzing the quantum physics of it, scientifically a cause for the universe is hard to get around. Where do you stand? 

    We will continue to investigate this question, and other implications of God, in later posts.
Thanks for reading, and let me know if you have any comments or questions on the "Got Questions" page located above!

     

Designed for Discovery: A Foreword

   "Many have found that the awesome sight of the star-studded heavens evoke a sense of wonder, an awareness of transcendence...the beauty of the night skies or a glorious sunset are important pointers to the origins and the ultimate fulfillment of our heart's deepest desires."

- Alister McGrath

        If you're anything like me, you've experienced a  magical moment when you're laying on a blanket in a patch of grass somewhere, perhaps with a loved one or even alone, and you've thought to yourself 'Wow. This is amazing. This is beautiful. Where did it come from? There has to be more than what we're experiencing here on Earth'. And for the next half hour or so, you either think out or talk with the other person about a variety of philosophical, or religious, or scientfic possibilities explaining that captivating scene you just can't seem to wrap your brain completely around. Explaining life, maybe even the purpose for life itself.

       That feeling, that sense of wonder, it's in all of us. A multitude of reasearchers, including renowned scientists Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Wesley Richards, say that evidence points to humans being "designed to discover", with the drive for finding the truth and meaning behind it all being a part of all of us. With that said, my question to you is, what are you doing to search? To find?I honestly believe that each of us aren't as actively engaged in this process, which is perhaps one of the greatest points of existing, as much as we should be. I know of so many people who believe life is void of purpose and meaning, a mere scientific accident, and refute the idea of God... yet they do not explore the evidence for him either historically or scientifically. We, as humans, tend to be a bit stubborn. We make our mind up, (either way), and then stick to it regardless of how educated we actually are about a subject.

      I say it's time we change that. This blog is dedicated to bringing forth scientific knowledge, especially recent discoveries, that  have increasingly pointed to the existence of a Creator for this amazing universe we live in. I challenge you to explore it. Think about it, mull it over, maybe even do a little side research. For anyone who has even had a sliver of doubt about whether God was real, for anyone who has ever layed on their back looking at the night sky, wondering, 'wow, what is this place all about?'- this blog is for you. We all should be investigating that question, shouldn't we? For if the answer is found, and it does perhaps point to purpose, it would change everything.

     I hope that you read with an open mind, regardless of your stance or beliefs in life. Don't be afraid educate yourself, investigate what research says,and if you're a spiritual skeptic or seeker, I definitely invite you to go through the evidence to be presented yourself. There are 3 questions that led scientist Viggo Olsen to God and Christianity- the first being, "Is there a God who created the Universe?". That is precisely the question this blog will go into. (The second and third questions relate to whether God truly did reveal Himself to us and whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, which are questions I will answer during later projects. )

    So, wisdom seekers, can God's existence actually be supported, even proved by science? I'd say it's time to find out- after all, we were designed to discover. I hope you find as I have that faith and science do indeed have a meeting point- and where they point is indeed astounding.

P.S. For further information about  this blog, and specifically the research it is based on, please see the "Introduction &Purpose" page located above.