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.