Greg Rampinelli
God is spirit, and so we can’t see Him directly. Some people argue that it’s irrational to believe in something that you can’t see. But rational people believe in atoms, and magnetism, even though they can’t see them. We believe in these invisible forces and particles because we observe their effects. We observe God’s effects, too. The biggest one is the universe, which comprises all matter and energy in existence.
One of the most important questions that philosophers ask is, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The Christian answer is, because God created the universe ex nihilo, from nothing. Atheists, of course, reject that. There are numerous philosophical arguments that make the case that God created the universe. One of the simplest is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which originated with the Persian Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali and was developed recently by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. It takes the form of a classic syllogism:
Major premise: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”
Minor premise: “The universe began to exist.”
Conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause.”
(William L. Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 111)
Theists argue that the cause is God.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Regarding the major premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”, some atheist philosophers argue against it. Philosopher J.L. Mackie, for example, argued that there was no compelling reason to insist on it. He further argued that, if God created the universe, who created God? But our universal experience is that all contingent things (things that do not necessarily have to exist, which is almost everything) have a cause. As for who created God, that doesn’t contradict the major premise, which states that “Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause”. God did not begin to exist, and so does not have a cause (that is, God is a necessary being, not a contingent being). Another argument against the major premise comes from quantum mechanics, in which random fluctuations in a quantum vacuum might cause a universe to pop into being. This will be discussed later, since a quantum vacuum isn’t nothing.
The universe began to exist
The minor premise, “The universe began to exist”, has solid support. It’s true that, until recently, many philosophers, including Aristotle, believed that the universe was eternal. In contrast, the Kalam Cosmological Argument denies that the universe could have arisen at some infinitely earlier time in the past, since we would otherwise not reach the present (this is admittedly a difficult argument to follow). Moreover, the Second Law of Thermodynamics argues that entropy (disorder) increases in a closed system (such as the universe). The Law predicts that the universe will eventually reach a state in which no celestial bodies exist, but only widely distributed atoms. If the universe were eternal, we would have reached this state already. Hence, the universe cannot be eternal, and so it began to exist. Further, the evidence is overwhelming that the universe is expanding. An expanding eternal universe would have already reached the end state predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics – no stars, no planets, just isolated atoms.
The widespread acceptance of the Standard Model (“Big Bang” Theory), which states that the universe began from a singularity about 14 billion years ago, would seem to have settled the question. But other explanations have been touted. The Steady State Theory, for example, argued that the space left open by the expanding universe is filled by newly created matter. No evidence was ever provided, and the theory never explained how the light elements, such as helium and deuterium, could have been created without the “Big Bang”.
Another theory, or set of theories, that argue for an eternal universe is the oscillating universe. According to this theory, the universe has expanded since the “Big Bang”, but it will eventually stop expanding and then fall back into itself in a “Big Crunch”. When the universe collapses to a single point, a new “Big Bang” will occur, followed eventually by a “Big Crunch”, followed by a “Big Bang”, and the cycle repeats itself for eternity. There is no evidence for this theory – but any evidence would have been destroyed in the Big Bang. This means that the theory is not falsifiable, and so should be considered a metaphysical theory, not a scientific one, even if scientists promote it. More seriously, the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate, which makes it unlikely that the universe will collapse again. On the other hand, in Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, the renowned cosmologist Roger Penrose argues that this ultimate “heat death” would be equivalent to the singularity at the start of the “Big Bang”, and so the next cycle would begin. This seems fanciful.
Stephen Hawking and James Hartle argued that the universe didn’t develop from a single point, like the apex of a cone, but rather had a rounded shape, like a shuttlecock. Prior to that, there was no time, and so, Hawking argued, the universe had no real beginning. In fact, near the bottom of the shuttlecock, time ceases to exist and becomes pure space. So that theory, for which there is no real evidence, would mean the universe didn’t come into being at a given time, but wasn’t eternal either. I admit, I don’t understand the argument (which is a modest way of saying it makes no sense to me). This model isn’t universally accepted among cosmologists, to say the least. It’s based on the use of “imaginary time”: when real numbers for time are plugged into Einstein’s general relativity equation, a singularity results. That means, if real numbers are used, the universe had a beginning in time.
The universe has a cause
The conclusion, “The universe has a cause” follows necessarily from the major and the minor premise. So, what is the cause?
The cause of the universe must be outside the universe, because something cannot cause itself. Since the universe consists of all matter and energy, the cause cannot be matter and energy. Further, the cause must exist prior to the universe. Since time presumably began with the universe, the cause must be eternal or timeless. And the cause must be exceedingly powerful to create something from nothing. There are two types of causal explanations: impersonal explanations, that is, the workings of natural laws, and personal explanations, that is, the will of someone or something that can choose to do something. Since no matter or energy existed prior to the universe, there was nothing that an impersonal, natural law could work on. Therefore, the cause must be personal. A non-material (i.e. spiritual), timeless, powerful, and personal cause is what we mean by God.
Of course, atheists reject this conclusion. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be atheists. The strongest non-theistic explanation for the cause of the universe comes from quantum mechanics. Both Villenkin and Hartle-Hawking argue that random fluctuations in a quantum vacuum can fleetingly create particles. If these particles are close enough to each other, gravity (assuming it exists in the pre-universe state) can collapse them into a point. This can result in the “Big Bang”, and the universe is created. So, the universe is created from nothing! Except, of course, the quantum vacuum is not nothing (pardon the double negative!). It has fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
So, an argument is that the quantum vacuum existed eternally, and the random fluctuations in the vacuum created enough particles – fleetingly – which gravity then attracted into one point. Voila! The universe was born! No one has proved it yet, but no one can disprove it, either, since any evidence would have been obliterated by the big bang itself. The observable universe has a mass of 1053 kg. Could so much mass really be created randomly through fleeting fluctuations? If so, why don’t we see new universes popping into existence, maybe between Saturn and Uranus?
Conclusion
Ultimately, it comes down to inference to the best solution. As a theist, I’m convinced by the Kalam Cosmological Argument that the universe was created by God. To an atheist, though, the idea of a creator God is impossible, or unacceptable, and ANY other possible solution is preferable. And so atheists are forced to accept arguments for which there is no evidence and that seem absurd.
A bit of irony: Stephen Hawking once wrote that philosophy is dead. His models for the origin of the universe are, strictly speaking, not scientific. According to Karl Popper, the influential philosopher of science, falsifiability lies at the heart of science. If a theory can’t be proved wrong, it’s not a scientific theory, strictly speaking, even if based on science. How could Hawking’s model for the beginning of the universe be tested? If it cannot, it really belongs to metaphysics, a branch of philosophy.
To conclude, I’m convinced that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a powerful tool to show that God created the universe. It has its detractors. There are many other powerful arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. The next one I’ll discuss is the “Fine-tuning argument”.
A final note, this on language. I apologize for writing so much in the passive voice. That makes it harder to understand. But if we’re discussing atheist views on the origin of the universe, I see no way to use the active voice. Theists can say, “God created the universe”. Atheists can only say, “The universe came into being”, since they deny the existence of a personal agent (God). Perhaps linguists could develop an argument for the existence of God based on language style.
For a more complete discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, see William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd edition, Crossway, Wheaton IL, 2008 or William Lane Craig, On Guard, David C. Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, 2010