The Universe - A Cosmological Accident or Evidence of a Creator

For millennia, people have wrestled with the idea of an infinite past and the question of whether there was a beginning of the universe. Ancient Greek philosophers believed that physical matter was necessary and uncreated, and therefore eternal. They believed that although God may be responsible for introducing order into the cosmos, God did not create the universe itself. This Greek view contrasted with even more ancient Jewish thought about the subject. Hebrew writers held that the universe had not always existed but was created by God at some point in the past. As the first verse of the Hebrew holy scriptures states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Eventually these two competing traditions began to interact. There arose within Western philosophy an ongoing debate that lasted for well over a thousand years about whether or not the universe had a beginning. This debate played itself out among Jews and Muslims as well as Christians. It finally came to something of an inconclusive end through the work of eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who held that there were rationally compelling arguments for both sides, but nothing conclusive. However, significant scientific developments in the 20th Century have reignited the idea of a finite universe.

This article will look at the inevitable questions that arise from the idea of a finite universe, such as: why did the universe come into existence? How did the universe come into existence? And, if there was a beginning, there must have been a transcendent cause which brought the universe into being – a cause outside the universe itself, so what was that cause?

Cosmological Argument

Part of the cosmological argument is an attempt to prove that a transcendent creator brought the universe into being at some time in the finite past. The kalam cosmological argument was the result of Christian thinkers attempting to rebut Aristotle’s doctrine of the eternity of the universe and was developed by medieval Islamic Theologians into an argument for the existence of God.

Al-Ghazalı’s ideas were based on the following reasons: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.”

Before the birth of modern science, people had no scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe, but Ghazali presented some philosophical arguments for why the past had to be finite. However, during the 20th Century, cosmologists discovered that the physical universe likely had a beginning, contrary to the expectations of scientific materialists who had long portrayed the material universe as eternal and self-existent (and, therefore, in no need of an external creator). Albert Einstein’s discovery of the *general theory of relativity and its application to cosmology, turned the previously philosophical argument of the universe’s beginning into an actual scientific reality.

The first evidence of a cosmic beginning came in the 1920s when astronomers discovered that light coming from distant galaxies was being stretched out or *red-shifted as if the galaxies were moving away from us. Soon after, Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaître and Caltech astronomer Edwin Hubble independently showed that galaxies farther away from Earth were receding faster than those close at hand. That suggested a spherical expansion of the universe (and space) like a balloon inflating from a singular explosive beginning - from a “big bang”.

Lemaître also showed that Einstein’s equations describing gravity most naturally implied a dynamic, evolving universe, despite Einstein’s initial attempt to manipulate his own equations to depict the universe as eternally existing and static - i.e., neither contracting or expanding. In 1931, Einstein visited Hubble at the Mt. Wilson observatory in California to view the red-shift evidence for himself. He later announced that denying the evidence of a beginning was “the greatest blunder” of his scientific career.

As you trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually the distance between any two points in space becomes zero. You cannot get any closer than that! So, at that point you’ve reached the boundary of space and time. Space and time cannot be extended any further back than that. It is literally the beginning of space and time. This evidence of a beginning, later reinforced by other developments in observational astronomy and theoretical physics, not only contradicted the expectations of scientific materialists, it confirmed those of traditional theists. As physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias observed, “The best data we have [concerning a beginning] 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.”

What all this means is that there is very strong evidence that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, then it had a first cause. And if it had a first cause, then it makes sense to ask what kind of first cause is necessary to explain the origin of the universe. It must be:

• A cause outside of the universe

• Capable of generating all the matter and energy in the universe

• Capable of generating all the order we see inherent within the universe

No known material cause or set of material causes appears capable of accomplishing the above. I believe the need for such a powerful and intelligent first cause strongly suggests a purposeful design behind the origin of the universe.

Sceptical viewpoints

In physics it is theorised that *subatomic particles can come into being out of nothing. However, such theories concern particles originating as a fluctuation of the energy contained in a vacuum. A vacuum, in physics, is a sea of fluctuating energy that is governed by physical laws. When we are talking about the origins of the universe, however, we are asking where the physical laws that govern the material world, as well as where matter itself, comes from.

Another typical counter that an atheist might reply with is that if everything requires a cause, then what is the cause of the Creator? Notice, however, that premise 1 of the argument does not state that everything has a cause for its existence. Rather, it states that everything which has a beginning has a cause for its existence. This is a rather different claim. If God is conceived of as timeless, and beyond the laws of nature, then that God does not fit into the category of things that begin to exist, and thus does not fit into the category of things requiring a cause. Ultimately, every worldview must posit an unmoved mover, something which exists out of the necessity of its own nature – a timeless, uncaused, necessarily existent being responsible for initiating the chain of cause and effect. Otherwise, one is forced to postulate an infinite regress of causal explanations. The Universe clearly is not the unmoved mover from which everything else comes, since the scientific evidence shows convincingly that our Universe began to exist.

Teleological Argument

Since the 1960s, physicists have determined that the fundamental physical laws and parameters of our universe have been finely tuned, against all odds, to make our universe capable of hosting life. Even slight alterations in the values of many independent factors, such as the strength of gravitational and electromagnetic attraction, the masses of elementary particles, and the initial arrangement of matter and energy in the universe would have rendered life impossible.

Not surprisingly many physicists have concluded that this improbable fine-tuning for life points to a cosmic “fine-tuner.” As former Cambridge astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle argued: “A common-sense interpretation of the data suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics” to make life possible. To avoid this conclusion, some physicists have postulated a vast number of other universes. This “multiverse” idea portrays our universe as the outcome of a grand lottery in which some universe-generating mechanism spits out billions and billions of universes - so many that our universe with its improbable combination of life-conducive factors would eventually have to arise. Yet, advocates of the multiverse overlook an obvious problem. Whether based on *inflationary cosmology or *string theory, universe generating mechanisms still require prior unexplained fine-tuning. Therefore, taking us back to square one and the need for an ultimate fine-tuner.

In ancient history, Greek philosophers were so impressed with the order that pervades the cosmos, that many of them ascribed that order to the work of an intelligent mind who designed the universe. Plato’s Academy spent significant amounts of time and thought on the study of astronomy because, Plato believed, it was the science that would awaken man to his divine destiny. According to Plato, there are two things that “lead men to believe in the gods”: the argument based on the soul, and the argument “from the order of the motion of the stars, and of all things under the dominion of the mind which ordered the universe.” Plato employed both of these arguments to refute atheism and concluded that there must be a “best soul” who is the “maker and father of all,” the “King,” who ordered the primordial chaos into the rational cosmos we observe today.

Thought to have been demolished by the critiques of Hume and Kant, the teleological argument for God’s existence has come back into prominence in recent years. The scientific community has been stunned by its discovery of how complex and sensitive a nexus of initial conditions must be given in order for the universe even to permit the origin and evolution of intelligent life. The discovery of the cosmic fine-tuning for intelligent life has led many scientists to conclude that such a delicate balance of *physical constants and quantities as is essential for life cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence but demands some sort of explanation.

So, what is meant by fine-tuning? The physical laws of nature, when given mathematical expression, contain various constants, such as the *gravitational constant, whose values are not determined by the laws themselves; a universe governed by such laws might be characterised by any of a wide range of values for these constants. By fine-tuning one means that small deviations from the actual values of the constants and quantities in question would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is exquisitely narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values.

Consider some of the finely tuned factors that make our universe possible:

• If the strong nuclear force were slightly more powerful, then there would be no hydrogen, an essential element of life. If it was slightly weaker, then hydrogen would be the only element in existence.

• If the weak nuclear force were slightly different, then either there would not be enough helium to generate heavy elements in stars, or stars would burn out too quickly and supernova explosions could not scatter heavy elements across the universe.

• If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, atomic bonds, and thus complex molecules, could not form.

• If the value of the gravitational constant were slightly larger, one consequence would be that stars would become too hot and burn out too quickly. If it were smaller, stars would never burn at all, and heavy elements would not be produced.

The finely tuned laws and constants of the universe are an example of specified complexity in nature. They are complex in that their values and settings are highly unlikely. They are specified in that they match the specific requirements needed for life.

What all this shares is an incredible, astronomically precise, purposeful care and planning that went into the crafting of the laws and constants of the universe, gesturing unmistakably to intelligent design. As Nobel laureate in physics Charles Townes stated:

“Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here”.

Some scientists respond, “Well, there must be an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” That’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate. It assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that our universe was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially.

Other ideas about how the universe came into existence

Anthropic Principle

Some theorists have tried to support the hypothesis that the universe came into existence by chance, with a theory known as the Anthropic Principle. As formulated by Barrow and Tipler, the Anthropic Principle is a group of principles attempting to determine how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, given that we could only exist in a particular type of universe to start with. In other words, scientific observation of the universe would not even be possible if the laws of the universe had been incompatible with the development of life. The Anthropic Principle can only legitimately be employed, however, in conjunction with a Many Worlds Hypothesis, according to which a World Ensemble of universes exists, making possible a wide range of outcomes. The Many Worlds Hypothesis is essentially an effort on the part of supporters of the chance hypothesis to reduce the probability of the occurrence of fine-tuning.

Multiverse

Now if the Many Worlds Hypothesis is to be a plausible hypothesis, then some mechanism for generating the many worlds needs to be identified. This is where the multiverse enters the picture. So, what is the multiverse? The term comes from inflationary cosmology, which is often employed to defend the view that our universe is but one domain or “pocket universe” within a vastly larger universe, or multiverse. In an attempt to explain the astonishing large-scale smoothness of the universe, certain theorists proposed that a split second after the Big Bang singularity, the universe underwent a phase of super-rapid expansion which served to push the inhomogeneities out beyond our *event horizon.

Now one problem for the multiverse explanation is that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem requires that the multiverse be finite in the past and have a beginning. Since the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem requires that the multiverse itself cannot be extended into the infinite past, there can be only as many bubble universes now in existence as have formed in the *false vacuum since the multiverse’s inception at its boundary in the finite past. Given the incomprehensible improbability of the constants’ and quantities’ all falling randomly into the life-permitting range, it may well be highly improbable that a life-permitting universe should have decayed this soon out of the false vacuum. In that case the idea of fine-tuning has not been removed.

Moreover, the multiverse had better not require fine-tuning itself in order to generate the many worlds, otherwise the fine-tuning problem has not been eliminated but just moved backwards into time. The whole multiverse scenario depends on the hypothesis of *future-eternal inflation, which in turn is based upon the existence of certain *primordial scalar fields which govern inflation. Although Vilenkin observes that “Inflation is eternal in practically all models,” he also admits, “Another important question is whether or not such scalar fields really exist in nature. Unfortunately, we don’t know. There is no direct evidence for their existence.” This lack of evidence ought to temper the confidence with which the Many Worlds Hypothesis is put forward.

Whether the multiverse exists or not, the hypothesis does nothing to eliminate the need for a transcendent cause of the original universe.

The Universe Created Itself

The New Atheist Philosopher, Daniel Dennett agrees that the universe had a cause, but he believes that the cause of the universe is itself. In what he refers to as “the ultimate boot-strapping trick”, he claims that the universe created itself.

Dennett’s views seem contradictory. He is not saying that the universe is self-caused in the sense that it has always existed. Dennett agrees that the universe had an absolute beginning but believes that the universe somehow brought itself into being. This is clearly not possible, as in order to create itself, the universe would have to already exist. Dennett’s view is therefore logically incoherent.

Conclusion

There is strong evidence to suggest that the universe has not existed eternally and had an actual beginning, sometime in the finite past. We know this because our universe has been constantly expanding throughout its history. Mathematician Arvind Borde, physicists Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin showed that any universe that has been expanding like this cannot be infinite but must have a beginning. Their work is so important because it shows that no matter what the physical description of the early universe is, it cannot have existed eternally. There are many highly speculative physical scenarios, such as *loop quantum gravity models, string models, even *closed timelike curves, which propose to avoid the necessity of an absolute beginning. However, even if true, these ideas do not seem to eradicate the need for a beginning. And with this beginning, comes the necessity for a transcendent cause of that beginning. Critics, however, will point out that on this logic, God would need a cause too. But if God created the universe and the laws of nature, then that same God would be beyond the laws of nature and would not require a creator.

Key Terminology:

*General Theory of Relativity: Essentially, it's a theory of gravity. The basic idea is that instead of being an invisible force that attracts objects to one another, gravity is a curving or warping of space. The more massive an object, the more it warps the space around it

*Red-Shift: Red shift is a way astronomers use to tell the distance of any object that is very far away in the Universe. A star or galaxy moving away from us will look more red than it would if the source were not moving in our frame of reference

*Subatomic Particles: A subatomic particle is a unit of matter or energy that's the fundamental makeup of all matter. According to modern atomic theory, an atom has a nucleus, which is its centre, or core. The nucleus contains subatomic particles: protons and neutrons. Protons are positively-charged particles.

*Inflationary cosmology: A theory of cosmology in which the universe is assumed to have undergone a phase of very rapid expansion when the universe was about 10–35 second old; after this period of rapid expansion, the standard Big Bang and inflationary models are identical.

*String Theory: String theory proposes that the fundamental constituents of the universe are one-dimensional “strings” rather than point-like particles. What we perceive as particles are actually vibrations in loops of string, each with its own characteristic frequency.

*Physical constants: A physical constant is a number (physical quantity) that does not change. This is different from a mathematical constant, which is not based on a real measurement.

*Gravitational Constant: A constant relating the force of the gravitational attraction between two bodies to their masses and their distance from each other in Newton's law of gravitation. The gravitational constant equals approximately 6.67259 × 10−11 newton square meters per square kilogram

*Event Horizon: A notional boundary around a black hole beyond which no light or other radiation can escape

*False Vacuum: In quantum field theory, a false vacuum is a hypothetical vacuum that is stable, but not in the most stable state possible (it is metastable). A false vacuum exists at a local minimum of energy and is therefore not stable, in contrast to a true vacuum, which exists at a global minimum and is stable.

*Future-Eternal Inflation: Eternal inflation is a hypothetical inflationary universe model, which is itself an outgrowth or extension of the Big Bang theory. According to eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever throughout most of the universe.

*Scalar Field: In mathematics and physics, a scalar field or scalar-valued function associates a scalar value to every point in a space – possibly physical space. The scalar may either be a (dimensionless) mathematical number or a physical quantity.

*Loop Quantum Gravity Models: Loop quantum gravity (LQG) is a theory of quantum gravity, which aims to merge quantum mechanics and general relativity, incorporating matter of the Standard Model into the framework established for the pure quantum gravity case. Consequently, not just matter, but space itself, prefers an atomic structure.

*Closed Timelike Curves: In a closed timelike curve, the worldline of an object through spacetime follows a curious path where it eventually returns to the exact same coordinates in space and time that it was at previously. In other words, a closed timelike curve is the mathematical result of physics equations that allows for time travel.