Was the universe caused?
The Kalam Principle states that whatever begins to exist has a cause: The universe began to exist, thus the universe has a cause. The principle was first put forward around 400 AD by John Philoponus of Alexandria. Once you reach the logical conclusion the universe was caused, then the philosophic question, "Why?" cannot be avoided.
Does a beginning require a cause?
In the current age of scientific enlightenment when the very foundation of science itself is based on studying cause-effect relationships, it should be obvious that for something to begin to exist, it must have a cause. In the case of the existence of the universe however, scientists who accept the idea that the universe is expanding must also accept that the universe had a beginning. To avoid this conclusion, some scientists have instead suggested that something can come from nothing.
The “Big Bang Theory” attempts to resolve this by suggesting the universe can do, and did do, just that – it spontaneously popped into existence “ex nihilo,” as it were. To summarize, the universe exploded from a state where everything was previously stuffed into a tiny spot, perhaps no bigger than the period of a sentence. The Big Bang, however, does not explain why the universe exists. Nor do observations of the universe support the Big Bang as the origin of “stuff.” Nor can a thinking person truly conceive of something coming from nothing by any natural means.
Some scientists have put forward the idea of “quantum uncertainties” as the cause of matter’s existence. It has been shown that in a vacuum, sub-atomic matter/anti-matter pairs can spontaneously appear, though they tend to exist only briefly, and very rarely with any greater complexity than a quark or lepton pair. Furthermore, the “vacuum” in which they spontaneously appear is not truly an empty void of nothingness, rather it is a sea of turbulent, if generally low level, energy devoid of matter.
If, however, a person holds to the idea that the universe is static (not expanding and potentially infinite), the question of effect requiring a cause is not a problem. So, with either model, the premise that the beginning of the existence of anything requires a cause cannot reasonably be denied.
Did the universe have a beginning?
Whether the universe is consistent with a static or expanding model, it cannot have an infinite past, thus it must have had a beginning. This proposition holds both mathematically and philosophically.
To demonstrate this mathematically, imagine you had an infinite supply of marbles. If you gave away all your marbles to a friend, they would have infinite marbles and you’d have none. The sum would then be infinity plus zero. If instead you gave your friend every other marble, you’d both have an infinite amount of marbles. That yields the net sum of infinity + infinity. As another alternative, if you kept only three marbles, the new sum would be 3 + infinity.
Mathematically speaking, infinity is only a concept. It cannot exist in the physical universe. Substitute past events for marbles and the absurdity of the infinite model becomes obvious. In the real universe, you cannot add one to infinity because it is already infinite, thus you cannot add a new sun, moon, planet, galaxy, or even atoms.
Einstein’s theory of special relativity requires the universe to be non-static. If this is true, then it had to have come from somewhere, by some means, as a result of some prime cause. Even if the universe really is static, transfinite mathematics require a beginning for the cosmos.
Even the noted cosmologist Stephen Hawking has admitted that his best mathematical models can only create a parabolic past rather than one without a singularity at its core. To get there, he had to use “imaginary” numbers (numbers which include the square root of -1) in coming up with his parabolic time model. In other words, the hocus-pocus of high math could only blur the distinction of beginning from a “singularity” point to a curve. Regardless of its shape, a beginning is still a beginning.
Another theory which tries to skirt the issue of causation is that of the oscillating universe. If this is true, what caused the oscillations to begin? A theory was recently put forward suggesting multiple simultaneously existing universes which overlap. For this to be true, there would have to be some sort of “universe factory” cranking them out. Ignoring the obvious requirement for a higher intelligence to design such an unlikely universe factory, these same scientists keep grasping for some sort of natural explanation where there is none.
In spite of the theories of various scholars, the universe may actually be consistent with the static model. To begin with, there are a number of profound arguments against an expanding universe which cannot be dismissed out of hand. Additionally, the biblical text does not prohibit an expanding universe, nor does it require an expanding universe. However, scripture does not require nor prohibit a static universe, although many Bible scholars would find it easier to support a static model with scripture. If the universe is static at this time, and it very well may be relatively static, this does not get around the requirement for a beginning using the transfinite mathematics discussed earlier. With regard to God, it seems absurd that an ultimate being would endure an infinite past to get humanity to its current state.
If the universe began and it had a cause, is God that cause?
God is eternal. Thus He is without beginning and therefore the only logical prime cause for the existence of the universe. God started time and created all matter. Then He gave it order, and finally, He created life. Thus far, scientists positing a natural cause for the universe have been utterly unable to account for that cause. The only answer when the natural concept fails is a supernatural one. If science cannot show us our origin, perhaps the revelation of God’s word is the only logical answer after all.
The Case for a Creator: Part I Popular Evidence for Evolution
The Case for a Creator: Part II Homologous Embryos
