• Home
  • Blog: Ministry in Romania
  • Get Some Answers
    • Holy Week Answers
  • Get In Touch
  • Catechism
  • Videos
    • Sermons
  • Newsletters
  • Home
  • Blog: Ministry in Romania
  • Get Some Answers
    • Holy Week Answers
  • Get In Touch
  • Catechism
  • Videos
    • Sermons
  • Newsletters
   

Why Did the Universe Begin?

1/6/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
So far, "On Guard" has laid the important groundwork for understanding the pitfalls atheism faces right out of the gate. Not only does atheism fail to produce meaning, purpose, and values (see post "Absurdity of Life Without God"), but it also falls short in the areas of philosophy and reason, as atheism fails to produce an explanation of the universe - unless "inexplicability" is considered a good explanation (see post "Why Does Anything At All Exist?"). At the same time, Craig spent the previous chapter showing how God is a viable explanation for the universe, God maintains the explanatory property of necessity, and is the only explanation with explanatory power apart from entities like abstract objects, which are not viable options for reasons addressed elsewhere.  
In this next chapter, "Why Did the Universe Begin?" Craig begins to move beyond abstract philosophy, and starts to bring in some of the scientific evidence we find in the universe. It is an important chapter for understanding the more abstract ideas laid out in the previous chapter, and it helps the reader to really begin understanding the weight of the dilemma atheists face. It also helps the reader to understand the tremendous evidence for a being outside of the universe. It still does not point us to the Christian God, but we are moving more and more in that direction, as Craig continues building the positive case for God.
While the origins debate is very heated today, it is by no means a new debate. Philosophers have been discussing the origin of the universe for millenia. The general consensus, at least from the Greeks on, is that the universe is eternal. It has always been. Even most creation stories include a deity using material that is already existing to create. Really, most creation stories are about the reformation of matter, rather than the creation of it. However, the Bible seems insistent that God created out of nothing, which lead Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars to push back against the notion of an eternal universe, and pursue evidence to the contrary. It is Muslim scholar Abû Hâmid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazâlî whom Craig credits with the formation of what he calls the Kalam Cosmological Argument. 

Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Readers who have familiarized themselves with the previous chapter should notice that if we show that the universe has a cause, atheists are out of the game. Craig showed in the previous chapter how atheists cannot and largely do not adhere to causation of the material universe. So if the Kalam is successful, it is another win for the argument for God. As with the previous argument, this line of reasoning is perfectly valid. IF the premises are true, the conclusion MUST follow. The only way to prove the argument is wrong is to disprove or create significant doubt about one of the two premises of the argument. The video below will briefly run through the argument, and prepare you for some of the major points that will be brought up in the rest of the post.


Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

It seems utterly intuitive that something cannot come from nothing. We have no examples of this, ever. To deny premise one, then, seems utterly absurd. If a leaf falls, something caused it to do so. The thing that caused the leaf to fall was likewise caused by something else. The chain of causation goes on and on and on. Things do not happen or come into being without a cause (personal, natural, or necessary). 

At this point, atheists usually cite subatomic fluctuations in a vacuum as examples of particles coming into being out of nothing. However, there is a fallacy of equivocation here, as when physicists are speaking of this vacuum, they are talking about a sea of energy, not a vacuum devoid of anything. So even these virtual particles are coming from something. In the video below, you can get a glimpse at how vacuous such language and ideas are. Lawrence Krauss prides himself on being the spokesperson for defining nothing, and says that science determines this definition. I am unsure what scientists use to measure how much nothingness there is. But as Krauss - the leading scientific expert on nothing - speaks, you can hear contradiction after contradiction. 

- Krauss argues that nothing is very big and important, yet says philosophy and religion have contributed almost nothing to this discussion. By Krauss's definition of nothing, I'm wondering if that's a compliment or a derision. 
- Space can be created by nothing...from quantum mechanical effects. So you need quantum mechanics. That's not nothing.
- The dominant energy of the universe...resides in empty space. Well then I guess space isn't empty.
- The universe will become cold, dark, and dead, and nothingness will reign supreme. If we still have the universe - as dead and cold as it may be, that's still something. 
Fortunately, most people don't currently buy this equivocated argument, as it is utterly intuitive that something does not come from nothing. As Craig says in the book, we would wonder, then, why we don't frequently see something coming from nothing all the time. If it can happen to something as large and complex as the universe, certainly we would see objects pop into existence with at least some frequency. 

Premise 2: The Universe Began to Exist

While this premise is not quite as intuitive as the first, Craig selects several examples to make it pretty intuitive. The first line of reasoning is philosophical, along the lines of infinity, while the second line of reasoning focuses on scientific evidence. 

Craig uses several examples to make his case, some of which are a bit complex. We will just address one of these examples - the most simple one. Imagine counting to infinity. Obviously, you would never arrive at the end. If we apply this to the universe, which is supposedly of an infinite age, we have to ask how we could have ever arrived at today? If it's impossible to arrive at infinity by counting in succession, how could we have ever arrived at today through an infinite series of successive, days? If I can't count backwards long enough to ever arrive at the beginning, how would I have ever started counting to infinity and arrived at today?  It seems obvious, then, that the past is finite. For more examples, I recommend checking out the chapter, as well as checking out the video below.
Along with philosophical evidence for the universe, Craig also cites scientific evidence. The major scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe lies in the big bang and expansion of the universe, which is an almost universally accepted fact, evidenced by the red shift and background radiation (see video below). It is very clear that our universe began some finite time ago. We can quibble about how long ago, but we know that it was a finite amount of time. The question, then, becomes whether or not the beginning of our particular universe is part of some larger cycle, or whether our beginning was the beginning of it all. 

Atheists try to avoid the beginning of everything by arguing either for a "big crunch," or a multiverse. The first line of thought says that while the universe exploded in a big bang, gravity will one day overcome the force of expansion and pull everything back in, where the cycle will start all over again. However, most scientists today recognize that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, and gravity will almost certainly be too weak to pull all matter back in. 

The second line of reasoning, the multiverse, has little to no evidence for it at this time. In fact, if we have been birthed alongside or out of other universes, we have no access to them. We only have access to our universe. The notion of a multiverse is something that hangs almost solely on the motivation of escaping some other conclusion. Just as we saw with the atheist's go-to explanation for why the universe exists (it's inexplicable!), so those that cling to a mutliverse seemingly throw off evidence based conclusions and reason at this juncture. But even if they were right, and we did one day find evidence of a mutliverse, the problem of origins would still linger. Why does the multiverse exist, and how did we ever arrive at today if the multiverse is infinite? The multiverse still needs an explanation and has a beginning that must have a cause.
In the end, the Kalam rounds out Craig's previous argument. It shows us the absurdity of believing in an infinite universe, and the absurdity of clinging to the notion that something can come from nothing. If you find both of those things intuitive and/or factually weightier than their counterparts, your conclusion has to be that something beyond the universe is responsible for its being brought into existence. That entity or object would have to be outside of time, or we'd run into the same problems with infinity. That being must also be uncaused (property of necessity as discussed in the last chapter), or we would be caught in an infinite regress of causation. For such an entity or object to begin the creation of something, especially creation as complex as the universe, we can probably surmise that this entity must be some sort of personal being with the power of choice and will. Such conclusions lead us away from impersonally existing objects outside of the universe (abstract objects), as well as away from pantheism, where choice is not exercised. Finally, it takes us away from creation stories that center around deities reforming eternal matter. That doesn't leave us with many other options as we build more and more towards the Christian God. . 
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    *The views and ideas on this site are in no way affiliated with any organization, business, or individuals we are a part of or work with. They're also not theological certainties. They're simply thinking out loud, on issues and difficulties as I process things.

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Abortion Counterrebuttals
    Afterlife
    Apologetics
    Atheism
    Atonement
    Baptism
    Christian Life
    Church
    Cosmology
    COVID 19
    COVID-19
    Death
    Free Will
    Generosity And Wealth
    G.K. Chesterton
    Government
    Grace And Mercy
    Incarnation
    Inerrancy
    Joy
    Love
    Materialism
    Meaningpurpose
    Media
    Ministry-and-outreach
    Ministry-and-outreach
    Morality
    On-guard
    Pacifism
    Pacifism-counterrebuttals
    Podcast
    Poetry
    Politics
    Politics-of-jesus
    Pragmatism And Consequentialism
    Prayer
    Problem-of-evil
    Race-and-unity
    Rapid Fire
    Rebellion
    Reformed
    Relationships
    Salvation
    Social-issues
    Social-justice
    Sovereignty-of-god
    Spirit
    Spiritual-warfare
    Spontaneous-expansion-of-the-church
    Suffering
    Tradition
    Trinity
    When-helping-hurts


    Archives

    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2013
    March 2009
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007

    RESOURCES

    Check out some of our favorite online resources for theology and apologetics by clicking on the images below. 

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly