A summary of Frank Turek, William Lane Craig and Stephen Myers evidence for a beginning by Kevin Cleary
From the time that Galileo calculated that the earth was orbiting the sun and not vice-versa, critics of Christianity have claimed that the science of the cosmos was contrary to the record of creation found in Genesis 1:1. These claims are often overstated as Galileo remained a man of faith even during his conflict with the Catholic church. In fact he famously stated “the laws of nature are written by God in the language of mathematics.” As physicists learned more about how the universe functioned they usually did so with the conviction voiced by Kepler that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Isaac Newton wrote in his famous Principia Mathematica said that “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being”
The notions of Newton and Galileo once shared by most scientists have waned in modern times. John Lennox has well argued that a commitment to materialism is not consistent with the practice of science as it offers no foundational reason to trust the intellect or even to pursue truth. Despite this, a significant number of cosmologists prefer to believe that nothing exists but matter itself. That being the case these same scientists have provided what may be the strongest evidence available to the inquiring mind for the existence of God.
From Newton to Einstein most scientists held to the steady state theory of the universe. However, around the turn of the last century things started to change. Most are familiar with Newtonian physics and may have used some of his equations in high school to calculate gravitational pull. Einstein arrives on the scene and developed the theory of general relativity, stating that time, space and matter are related to one another. One of the ways we might think of what Einstein discovered, is to imagine being extremely fast perhaps like the comic book character Flash. The faster we move the closer we become to being in two places at the same time thus we can consider time and space to be relative. Einstein used a different experiment to demonstrate this principal. He imagined two people one standing on a train platform the other onboard the train which is moving very fast almost as fast as light. Further he imagined two simultaneous lighting strikes on at each end of the train. He points out that only for the person on the platform would the strikes be simultaneous. For the person on the train who is moving away from one strike and toward the other the strikes would appear to be separate as they would perceive the one at the front first and the one at the back second. In this way Einstein showed that time is different depending on perspective or is relative. Einstein showed that Newtons understanding of the universe was wrong and instead developed general relativity to explain the interaction of matter. Rather than bodies attracting one another Einstein envisioned gravity as mass bending or distorting space similar to how a bowling ball would deform a trampoline. Einstein wrote a series of equations which are known as field equations in which he described his theory of general relativity. The most famous of his equations is of course the relationship between energy and mater E=Mc2.
As mentioned Einsteins theory described gravity as mass interacting with spaces, curving it like you might get if you placed a bowling ball on a trampoline. His description however although more accurate than Newton needed some repulsive force to keep matter from congealing together into one massive ball. Einstein added a constant to his equations which he called the cosmological constant. This allowed for time-space to not compress and allowed for the empty spaces between bodies in the universe. Other physicists questioned Einsteins cosmological constant suggesting that in fact the density and radius of the universe changed or varied with time. Einstein rejected this theory and wrote rebuttals of the scientists who suggested it favouring a steady state universe.
In 1927 Belgian physicist Georges Lemaitre offered solutions to Einsteins field equations based on observations of distant galaxies. Lemaitre used Vesto Slipher’s research on the doppler effect and distant galaxies. The data indicated that galaxies that were further away were moving faster than those that were closer. His solution suggested a universe which was expanding in all directions and in a spherical shape. This further implied that in the past the universe was also smaller. As mentioned above Einstein was highly critical of this theory.
In 1931 Einstein famously visited Mt Wilson to look through Hubble’s telescope this event is often presented as the definitive moment that changed Einsteins mind. Upon considering Hubble’s data which showed red shift of galaxies was proportional to their distance Einstein was forced to admit that the universe was expanding. He called his insistence on his cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life. Red shift is caused by the lengthening of light waves into the infrared spectrum caused when an object is moving away from the observer. Thus, more redshift indicates greater speed of movement away.
The implications of this expanding universe were immediately evident to scientists. British Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington said “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me.” Einstein himself expressed a similar sentiment regarding Lemaitre’s hypothesis saying his primeval atom hypothesis was inspired by the Christian dogma of creation, and totally unjustified from the physical point of view.” Robert Dicke explained “An infinitely old universe would relieve us of the necessity of understanding the origin of matter at any finite time in the past. A finite universe, by contrast, would force scientists to confront uncomfortable questions about the ultimate beginning of the material universe itself. It also raised the possibility that the universe had begun in something like a creation event produced by a cause that existed independently of matter, space, time and energy.”
In response physicists proposed alternatives. Hoyle defended the steady state by hypothesizing matter spontaneously appearing in the spaced between galaxies. Oscillating universe was another alternative in which the universe expands and contracts repeatedly into the infinite past. Both theories result in the actual infinite fallacy. However, they are also weakened by the second law of thermodynamics or entropy which states that in a closed system some energy is irrecoverably lost in every chemical reaction. That means that were the universe infinitely old it would have long since run out of energy. Recent astronomical measurements suggest that the universe has a mass density too low to stop expansion and to start a contraction.
Other important discoveries have further bolstered evidence for the big bang.
Two important ones relate to cosmic background radiation, sometimes called the radiation afterglow. This refers to low levels of radiation that should be present throughout the universe if there was a big bang at some time in the past. Meyers describes this phenomenon using the example of a turkey cooked in the oven then carried into a room. The high heat from the turkey radiates through the space slightly raising the temperature of the room. Similarly, the energy expelled at the big bang should leave a small amount of background radiation throughout the universe. Two physicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered this very thing using large antennae. They were getting constant interference coming in from all directions and couldn’t figure out what it was. They eventually realized that it was in the form of microwave wavelengths and could be found everywhere. In other words, they found the residual energy predicted from the big bang. They contacted Robert Dicke at Princeton who had also been searching for evidence of cosmic background radiation. He examined their findings and concluded that they had found what he was looking for.
There is another important discovery related to background radiation. It take a bit of explaining. If the universe started from the expansion of a singularity and matter radiated uniformly as it expanded, we would expect to find a uniform distribution of Galaxies in the universe. But what we see instead are clumps of bodies separated by large voids. This would require slight fluctuations in density in the early expansion which would leave evidence in the form of slight fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation. The problem was, that no such fluctuation could be found. Remember, Penzias and Wilson found the same interference coming from all directions. This problem persisted until NASA launched a satellite (Cosmic Background Explorer, COBE) which could look out into the universe without the obfuscation (interference) of the atmosphere. When they did, they found exactly the fluctuations that were expected, indicating small anomalies in density during the early universe. Some cosmologists have called these fluctuations in radiation – galaxy seeds.
These discoveries have convinced nearly all cosmologists that indeed the universe is not eternal but instead had a beginning in the finite past. Despite their best efforts the evidence was simply too much to ignore, and much to the dismay of those who were wise enough to grasp the immediate implications.
To be very clear, Theists have for many years invoked the cosmological argument to prove God’s existence. The cosmological argument simply states that: Anything which began to exist must have a cause sufficient to account for it. The Universe began to exist. The universe has a pre-existent cause of sufficient power to account for its existence. We can further conclude that this cause is itself outside of time and space. It is powerful and has an active will since this outside cause would by necessity need to intend to create. This initial point moves nicely into a discussion of the teleological argument which we will reserve for another time.
If you want a more detailed discussion I have pulled material for this article from three books.
- Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig,
- I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Frank Turek, and
- Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen Meyers.
While sampling their work, this article seeks – to strengthen our faith, encourage personal study to equip us to give reasons for the faith that we hold.
Barrie ON