If current Big Bang cosmology is correct (and the evidence is very good that it is) then the entire space-time universe exploded into being out of nothing (see previous posts God and the Astronomers and Who Made God? ). Therefore, the Cause of the universe would seem to have these attributes:
· spaceless because it created space
· timeless because it created time
· immaterial because it created matter
· powerful because it created out of nothing
· intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
· personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces don’t make choices).
These are the same attributes of the God of the Bible (which is one reason I believe in a the God of the Bible and not a god of mythology like Zeus).
When I’ve posed this conclusion to atheists, many of them responded by claiming that I was speculating—that we really don’t know what caused the universe (see comments on the posts above). This is exactly the kind of response that Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow said is common for atheists who have their own religion—the religion of science. Jastrow, who once sat in Edwin Hubble’s chair at the Mount Wilson Observatory, wrote this:
There is a kind of religion in science . . . every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause. . . . This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implicationsCin science this is known as Arefusing to speculate@Cor trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker.
The implication of the creation of the universe out of nothing is that there is a Cause outside the universe with the attributes listed above. That’s not speculation, but following the evidence where it leads.
This is likely to become a very long comment thread?
But I would just like to start by pointing out that Big Bang Cosmology entails much more than the implication of a beginning. In fact simply using the big bang as evidence of a beginning makes other parts of the model redundant. You could really make the same point without reference to Big Bang at all. I guess what I’m trying to say is we don’t need to dress the Kalam Cosmological Argument in Big Bang clothing to make our point. Though I grant it may hold more sway with the secular types.
In his book ‘Refuting Compromise’, Jonathan Sarfati makes the following assessment in his chapter on the big bang:
“The Kalam argument can withstand all the arguments thrown against it, but does not need the big bang at all. It was proposed well before the big bang…
…It can survive long after the big bang is discredited.”
Arguments from the first and second laws of thermodynamics are obviously part of the package, but Big Bang Cosmology is not required.
A quote from George Francis Rayner Ellis may help in making my point:
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Gibbs, W. Wayt, 1995. Profile: George F.R. Ellis; Thinking Globally, Acting Universally. Scientific American 273(4):28, 29.
Love your site Frank.
Duane
Frank,
Are you a six-day creationist? I’m having trouble finding your opinion on this from watching your 1-hr programs on TV, especially when you go into your cosmological arguments. You’ve said that if the New Testament is true then the Old Testament would be true which implies that Genesis 1 and 2 are included in this. You have also said that you believe in the Big Bang, but you just know who ‘banged’ it.
I just got your book in the mail today. Woo hoo! I really appreciate your work and I just know that it is good ammunition to help defend the Bible when the situation arises.
Duane, I’m not sure I agree fully with you, but it could be that I’m just ignorant of the specifics of the Kalam argument. It would seem that it could fail if the universe meets points 2 or 3 below.
But I have yet to see any atheist be able to refute this argument. That doesn’t mean they can’t just that most haven’t been able. Usually I get one of the following
1. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang?
2. Appeal to the multiverse or the bud theory or the cycling of time theory.
3. Appeal to collapsing and expanding universes
4. How can the first cause exist outside of time or some definitional argument about how the first cause defies our understanding so it can’t exist.
5. And believe it or not: “Well the Big Bang is only a theory you can’ t prove it.”
6. The laws of Physics and Rationality did not apply before the big bang and you can’t prove it did.
My response so far has been:
1. Is silly to say nobody knows what happened before the big bang because we know there was the singularity. But we know that causally the singularity cannot be mechanistic.
2. The multiverses and buds and cycling of time cannot be proved so it has to be taken on blind faith. Ironically enough the cycling of time is pure Hinduism which I doubt any self respecting atheist really wishes to appeal to.
3. Collapsing and Expanding has been so far scientifically disproved.
4. How can the first cause exist outside of time or some definitional argument about how the first cause defies our understanding so it can’t exist: This is self explanatory. Ask a 2D creature to define a 3D creature and see if they have trouble compehending it. Now ask a 4D like us to envision a extra-dimensional non-creature and we are surprized that we can’t comprehend it. That does not mean it does not exist. This is a lame excuse if you think about it. There are lots of things we were not able to comprehend even 40 years ago that we now manufacture without even batting an eyelid.
5. Well it’s only a theory you can’ t prove it.” always took me by surprise. I usually ask if they really want to go down this path.
6. The laws of Physics and Rationality did not apply before the big bang and you can’t prove it did: My response to this is to have them try to prove that 1+1 was NOT = 2 at the point of the singularity. And then I ask: Why are you rationally trying to argue that rationality does not apply?
Any one on the otherside wish to opine?
Hi Neil,
The Kalam argument as I understand it goes like this:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
It rests on the premise that the universe is not infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates an immaterial cause for its existence. Christians hold that God was this immaterial cause. All I am saying is that I don’t think anything in the big bang cosmological model (as I understand it) can add anything of significance to this argument that would by necessity help support the Christian’s argument. But I am open to possibilities.
Also I would note, that on points 2 and 3 in your comments, if either of these were true this would not only possibly contradict the Kalam Argument but also a Big Bang model as I understand it, as both assume a universe that had an ultimate beginning of space time history. This is in part, why I think we should abandon arguments specifically from a Big Bang cosmology stand point. Am I making sense?
Thanks for your helpful comments.
I will admit however, that I have for the sake of argument, accepted big bang cosmology for the purposes that Frank has in his post above. I think Frank makes valid points that follow if one accepts a ‘big bang’. But also think the same points probably could have been made without reference to the model.
??
Duane,
If you’re interested, William Lane Craig deals with this in great detail in his book Reasonable Faith (and multiple other papers, debates, etc.).
To be picky, I don’t the the argument is founded on the premise “The universe began to exist.” as you imply. My understanding of the argument is that it’s intent is to philosophically and logically demonstrate that it’s impossible for the universe to not have a beginning. In other words, that it is a logical impossibility for there to be an ACTUAL infinite number of things.
I personally find it to be one of the headier arguments out there, and am more comfortable explaining the BB-based Cosmological Argument to laymen than the Kalam. That’s not to say the Kalam argument is not good, just that, for me, it requires constant revisiting and review since it deals in more abstract terms.
“Therefore, the Cause of the universe would seem to have these attributes:
· spaceless because it created space”
OK, I’ll go with that.
” · timeless because it created time”
Same reasoning, so I’ll accept that, too.
“· immaterial because it created matter”
Sure.
“· powerful because it created out of nothing”
Woah! Stop the Press. Space, time, and matter were created a the Big Bang, but so was energy. Therefore, according to the reasoning that you have laid out, whatever caused the universe to come into existence could not have energy. If it didn’t have energy, then I don’t see how it can be said to be powerful.
Also, I find it very hard to talk about existence outside of space and time. Maybe more on that later
Cheers,
Mike
“trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang”
I’m not sure where you’ve pulled this from or to what Robert Jastrow was referring, but the term “Big Bang” was coined by astronomer Fred Hoyle and was meant to deride the theory that he rejected.
MikeH,
Yes, I think Jastrow was saying that Hoyle was trying to trivialize the creation event by calling it the Big Bang.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
Bryan,
Just recently I heard Greg Koukl use an argument that I have heard him use a number of times before; If there was a big bang, there had to be a Big Banger. I agree with this line of reasoning, but some may see it as giving up the farm a bit. I don’t know if I’d go that far – it has its uses – but I prefer to stay away from BB cosmology if I can because the cosmology itself does not – properly understood – necessarily fit within a Christian worldview.
Ultimately, I am comfortable arguing for a beginning. I think this is scientifically and logically sound. I can’t be as confident in saying that there was a ‘big bang’ – whatever that intends to imply – as there is so much more wrapped up in that which is not necessarily biblical. That’s just one of my hang-ups I suppose?
Thanks for your helpful comments.
Duane
” · timeless because it created time”
Uh Oh.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7440217.stm
Hints of ‘time before the Big Bang’
Yeah MikeH, I would probably be more comfortable saying that the cause (God) would have to be temporal as opposed to timeless. I probably should explain what I mean by that to avoid confusion, but I’ve only got time for a byte.
Cheers,
Duane
One thing I never understood about creationism:
(1) Nothing can just “always have been here,” right? Cause and effect, universe = effect, ??? = cause. Am I right so far?
(2) So something had to cause the universe. Right? So creationists say it’s God, right?
(3) But according to the principle stated in the first point, nothing can have always been. That’s how we know to defer the point to “??? = cause, universe = effect.” Am I right?
So…the very idea/necessity of God existing, according to Creationism, would seem to prove that such a thing can happen. Therefore, by inferring his existence, we can infer that he doesn’t have to exist. The universe may have always been here, by that logic.
powerful because it created out of nothing
Another simple problem. If nothing exists….then what is God? He can’t be nothing, because (assuming he were real) he would have to be something, to be God. If God is nothing, then He doesn’t exist, really. So if He created everything — and I mean “everything” — then that means he would have to exist outside the scope of that everything. Which means he has to be what everything isn’t — nothing.
Tim D
Despite all of your verbal gymnastics and loose definitions, i think that you have missed the point of the argument.
1. Creationists DON’T say nothing has “always been there” as you say. We say that God has always been there, before time began.
2. We would also point to thermodynamics to show that the universe had a beginning.
3. The argument is then based on observations and analogy.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (observation)
2. The universe began to exist (thermodynamics)
3. Therefore the universe had a cause (analogy)
My suggestion to you is to thoroughly understand the correct creationist position before criticizing it.
Despite all of your verbal gymnastics and loose definitions
Wow. Nice zing; I can tell this will be fun!
1. Creationists DON’T say nothing has “always been there” as you say. We say that God has always been there, before time began.
You misunderstand; I meant not that you implied “nothing” (defined as a noun) can have always been. I was stating that nothing (as in, no thing that exists) can have always been — “No thing that we know of can have always existed, right?” The universe, for example.
2. We would also point to thermodynamics to show that the universe had a beginning.
Ah, yes, but how would you prove that this universe was the first universe? How do we know there were not others before it? All we know through Big Bang is that all the matter in the universe was likely compressed into a single point in space; we don’t know how long that matter/space might have been there, or how it got there. It could have been the result of another preexisting universe’s Crunch, which would mean that the beginning of our universe—even if it was only 6000 years old—wasn’t really the beginning of time or space or matter or energy in an objective sense. It was just the beginning of this particular continuum.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (observation)
2. The universe began to exist (thermodynamics)
3. Therefore the universe had a cause (analogy)
I know, I know, that’s why I was asking. What I’m saying is, God would have to “break the law of thermodynamics” in a sense, unless of course he was “outside the scope of” the universe as we understand it. In which case there must be somewhere that exists outside of the universe that he could be. If not, then there is simply “nothing” outside of the universe — nothing exists beyond the universe. In which case, God cannot exist there, because God is not “nothing.”
I know it’s confusing, but it really does make sense if you sit down and think about it. I presented this question to you because I hoped you might actually be able to answer it; I refuse to believe something this easily refuted could be an accurate representation of an entire sect of pseudoscientific belief (see: Christian Creationism), although I have my concerns to that end.
I refuse to believe something this easily refuted could be an accurate representation of an entire sect of pseudoscientific belief (see: Christian Creationism), although I have my concerns to that end.
Christians and Jews believe that God is the great “I am”. When Moses asked Him, “…(the children of Israel) shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?”, God said, “…I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” (see: Exodus 3:13,14)
Think about it for a minute… God is the I am of the universe. He created it so, when describing Him one simply finishes the sentence thus: He is (I am) “Wonderful”, “Counselor”, “The mighty God”, “The everlasting Father”, “The Prince of Peace” “Creator”, etc.
Indeed, when a believer discusses God, the perceptive believer “gets” the fact that he, His creation, cannot suss out God in total. And that that is by design. So, asking “who made God” is irrational within this context. You may deny His existence, but it is nonsensical to simultaneously do that while demanding an explanation of His origin. To the believer, however, it makes total sense to say that He is unexplainable for, how can one explain the origin(s) of His Universe when we are but a part of it?
The non-believer must try and explain existence against the fundamental laws of physics. True, both are articles of faith only, my faith is grounded in a revelation born of God, yours is born of your requirement that He not exist due to the fact that the very concept of Him is an affront to your intelligence.
Summary: To the atheist, the unexplainable is more satisfyingly “explained” by denying and or ignoring basic scientific tenets, i.e. “Nobody “did it” and, I can accept that and all of its inherent contradictions and fallacies for, I am the ultimate arbiter of truth.”, feels better than, “God did it. Life has many unanswered questions, but I will not deny The One who provided it in the first place, for sake of my pride / ego.”
Think about it for a minute… God is the I am of the universe. He created it so, when describing Him one simply finishes the sentence thus: He is (I am) “Wonderful”, “Counselor”, “The mighty God”, “The everlasting Father”, “The Prince of Peace” “Creator”, etc.
What is an “I am?” I’ve been studying English lately so I looked this up — turns out that “I am” is not a noun, but rather a simple subject and a verb 0.0 By itself “I” is a noun, but adding “am” describes an action (the act of “is”-ing), so forgive me if that makes your wording a little confusing….
The non-believer must try and explain existence against the fundamental laws of physics.
If by that you mean “leaning against the laws of physics,” as in, “using the laws of physics to prop it up so that it stands straight,” then yes, I agree
my faith is grounded in a revelation born of God,
A “revelation” whose veracity is only “proven” by….itself. This is called “circular reasoning,” hence the skepticism.
Mark, if you believe that then it’s fine by me of course. But do you honestly believe that someone is evil or crazy if they don’t? Seriously?
“Nobody “did it” and, I can accept that and all of its inherent contradictions and fallacies for, I am the ultimate arbiter of truth.”, feels better than, “God did it. Life has many unanswered questions, but I will not deny The One who provided it in the first place, for sake of my pride / ego.”
I dunno. Ultimately I can’t decide which is more eerie or atmospheric or interesting — the idea that the universe is empty and we’re on our own to try to do whatever it is we’re going to do before we die and go away forever….or that there’s an invisible, intangible super deity that exists in a way that is impossible and watches us go to the bathroom.
So I wouldn’t really say that either one “feels better” than the other one. Just that one fits the world I see more than the other.
Tim D.
Uh . . . he . . . he watches me pee?
“To the believer, however, it makes total sense to say that He is unexplainable . . .”
Of course . . . then they go on to explain things about him that they couldn’t possibly know. For someone so unexplainable the believers seem to know an awful lot about him, his motives, his likes and dislikes, and that he is male. He. He. He.
It should never amaze a believer how believers of a non can discount -so easily- anything that does not meet their standards of believability. They are, after all, beginning and end in themselves.
That is why it only makes sense that -unless one side forsakes their faith- the two sides will miss each other in perpetuity. e.g. the believer cannot help but see God. The non believer cannot help but see himself.
We not only “may as well” be speaking two, entirely different languages – we are.
It should never amaze a believer how believers of a non can discount -so easily- anything that does not meet their standards of believability. They are, after all, beginning and end in themselves.
So….what is an “I am?”