Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Universe #2 - Natural Explanations for the Universes Existence

Clearly the Big Bang Theory and the Law of Entropy dictate a starting point to the universe.  An eternal, all-powerful God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe's existence. 

God doesn't have to be the only explanation for the universe's origin.  There are natural explanations. 

1. The universe could have created itself. 

However this isn't a very good explanation is it?  How could something exist before existed in order to create itself.  That's like saying I existed before my conception and conceived myself.  That's just not plausible. 

2.  The universe could have popped into existence from nothing!

However, when has this ever occurred?  From nothing, nothing comes. 

3.  The universe could have sprang from another universe, like a multiverse that produces more universes. 

That's great in speculation.  It's mere theory.  Is this at all observable?  Is there any date to support this?  Not that I know of.  And does this really solve the God dilemma?  Nope.  This explanation still doesn't account for the origin of the first universe. 

4.  The universe is eternal.  

We're back to the first post now!  This explanation goes against the Law of Entropy, a law, not a theory, and it goes against the Big Bang Theory too. 

Any other natural explanations?


  1. As far as natural theology goes, absolutely. It seems more reasonable that the universe is in some sense eternal/infinite and is continually going through changes. The alternative is clearly a God who hates us. More then 99.9% of the amount of creation is uninhabitable to life. Not to mention, gamma rays, radiation,black holes, gasses which would cause our lungs to explode. Yes, it seems the choices are between a random chance universe or a God who hates us... I reference David Hume on this... Pretty good read.

  2. The first post in this series, which was just the day before, shows that according the law of entropy, the universe can't be eternal. This shows that the universe had a singular beginning. Also, the Big Bang Theory shows that the universe a singular beginning. What natural explanations would there be for the start of the universe than the four I listed?

  3. The God who hates us theory does not work since there is a very good explanation for the hazards and perils found in the universe. It is called sin and the curse that came with it. The creation that we now see is not in the same state it was formed in. Creation itself groans and awaits for its redemption.

    Since the universe is 99.9% uninhabitable ( your numbers and I am likely to agree )what is the probabilty of life being existent anywhere in that universe? What conditions or pre-conditions had to exist for its formation from random chance? What is the probability that once started that it would evolve by chance mutations into a life form able to even question its origins?

    It all comes back to what was the First Cause of the universe. Was it a mindless random event with nothing springing from nothing ( if there was pre-matter what were its origins ) or was it a result of special creation at the hands of God?

  4. I would have to side with David here without the "hate" part. It only tends to further personify a myth. There are, and will continue to be, a myriad of elements to our existence that exceed our ability to decipher with our current capabilities. But to default to "there must have been a god that did it" is just taking the easy way out and not give scientific method it's due time. If you feel you have your answer, then why would you waste time, money and effort to continue to explore.

    To take the easy god theory, you'd also be on the losing side of what history has repeatedy proven to be the losing side of the bet. Throughout time there have been hundreds of gods credited with what the cultures of the time could not explain: crop growth, fertility, weather, sickness, and the list goes on and on. (did you ever postulate as a child that thunder was the gods bowling in the clouds?) In all but the most primitive contemporary cultures, those gaps in understanding have been filled by science; we no longer default to "the gods must be happy, or sad, or bowling in the clouds".

    I don't hold much hope that science will fill the knowledge gap of the origin of our universe, yet still, science gets my bet in the long term. The reasons for justifying the existence of supernatural forces continue to dwindle. That doesn't necessariy make me happy however since I admit to sometimes being intellectually lazy. But at least I'm intellectually honest.

  5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_676IeyJNQ&feature=player_detailpage

    The link above is connected to a youtube video discussing William Lane Craig's version of the Kalam Cosmological argument

    The intelligent atheist will reject premise that the universe was caused by God. They will reshape the argument to show the universe has a natural cause. They will then show that when physicists speak of the universe coming from "nothing" they are in fact being playful with the English language. Most people do not have degrees in physics. Rest assured there was something... The something was natural, and that is what caused the universe.

    I prefer Leibniz argument of why is there something rather than nothing... But, you can continue using the Kalam argument, I just believe modern cosmology is moving away from what Kalam was trying to show.

  6. Now this argument I do like! Go through the whole thing, it's worth the time.


  7. Poolcat, I think there are still plenty of reasons to continue to explore even if we have the God answer. Scripture exhorts the Christian to pursue wisdom and knowledge, and that wisdom begins with fear of the Lord.

    It's my understanding the modern scientific enterprise as we know it today originated with a Christian cradle of Christian Europe. I believe their beliefs derived from the Bible propelled them to explore and learn more. They recognized that there was order and purpose and constants in the universe, that they could trust their senses, and that the universe was created good by God and that by exploring it they can learn more about the God who created it.

  8. David, what is their natural explanation for the start of the universe? Where did it originate? How did it originate? Where did the substance get its origin?

    Do they have answers?
    Did it naturally create itself?
    Did it naturally pop into existence from "nothing?" What's the something, if it's not nothing as you say they would claim?
    Is the universe eternal?

  9. Their explanation would be a cross between #2 and #5. Employing argument #2 or #5 does seem to go against common sense. But, if you dig deeper, the first thing ANY physicist will tell you is when dealing with Quantum Mechanics are common sense goes out the window...If you ever want to talk about this at length, have Wess give you my number, we can always meet at peets.

    Additionally, when we use arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument, we are giving the atheist, and others, the false belief we are Christians/theists because science cannot explain a certain topic about reality... God is needed to fill in the gaps. This is not why I am a Christian, and I am sure arguments like these are not why you are a Christian. So I ask you, why should we use them?

  10. Have you seen the movie Nacho Libre. There's the wrestler in the movie who says he doesn't believe in God, he believes in science. I think arguments like these go to show that a person doesn't have to reject science if they believe God exists. I think these arguments might be a way of removing one stumbling block for some people.

    I would only go this route with someone if science was their main point of objection to Christianity, or if they directly asked questions about the Big Bang theory or science and Christianity being at odds with one another.

  11. Well I believe that is the right sentiment. If you want to remove the stumbling block then concede point and show how it is irrelevant. Show how Christianity is about sinful man and God's relationship with man. Science is about what happens when you boil water? We want to avoid the God of the gaps... Here is why... Suppose for a moment science could prove conclusively that the universe always existed (in some form or another, maybe a form without entropy)... Something which may actually occur in our lifetime... Is it possible, that would cause some people to stumble in their faith???

    When you answer yes, as I think most people would do, you show how people miss understand arguments like Kalam... It is not science. It is an argument based upon and interpretation of the facts of science. When more information comes to light, as in science, it often does, the perception changes.

  12. My skepticism isn't around the existence of a beginning divinity, something that started it all, as much as it is in a personal god; a god that actively participates in the lives or events of the world and science. I just see no evidence that anything is "in control".

  13. Poolcat would the laws of science indicate something, or someone, is in control?

    Laws have a law-giver, right? Wouldn't that have to be God, and for those laws to remain constant, God would have to keep them constant.

    Then when we look to Jesus we see the invisible image of God made visible.