I decided to state up front that, usually, I do not like citing scientific evidence for the Big Bang as support for the fact that the universe had a beginning and I want to explain why: although the existing scientific evidence for the Big Bang is very strong, logic and its counterpart/extension mathematics are necessary to prove that there is no such thing as an infinite number of moments in the past and therefore it is logically impossible for there to not be a finite beginning to time and thus the universe also. While current cosmology strongly supports a finite past, logic alone can actually prove that the past is finite [1]. With that aside, let us proceed!
 |
| Scientific evidence discovered since 1929 strongly supports the Big Bang cosmological model of the universe, a model in which the universe exploded into existence in the past at the beginning of time, expanding outward from an initial point. |
In 1929 Edwin Hubble detected that distant galaxies were shifting apart. It follows, of course, that if galaxies and celestial bodies have always been moving away from the same spatial location then the universe emerged from a primordial point. Before this "Big Bang", there was no universe. The ramifications for science and other disciplines were enormous. Since 1929 further research has affirmed the Big Bang model. It is now the predominant model of the universe, with dissenters unable to appeal to any legitimate evidence from within science itself. It is also believed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, potentially discrediting the hypothesis that the universe expands, retracts, and expands again. The ultimate significance of the universe having a beginning is that if the universe began to exist then something external to it must have been the cause of its creation. Something that exists has 1) always existed and thus needs no cause, 2) had a beginning and caused itself to come into existence, or 3) had a beginning and been caused by something else. The Big Bang indicates that the universe does not fall into category 1) and it is impossible for anything to belong to category 2), as that would mean something caused itself before it even existed. Thus, the only other possibility is that something with a beginning must have an external cause, and those who ignore the fact that logic proves that the past is not eternal cannot find support for their irrational position in cosmology. Einstein himself once believed in an eternal universe (this idea is referred to as Steady State theory), yet he abandoned the position because it was mathematically impossible, leading him to label his theory "the greatest blunder of my life".
Now, what is the significance of this theory beyond the fact that it boasts empirical support? The Big Bang model is perfectly consistent with the opening chapter of Genesis where it is said that the universe had an absolute beginning, whereas other belief systems like Bhuddism hold to Steady State theory and thus contradict modern science. Since atheists have sometimes retreated back behind science as an excuse to deny theism (they might conveniently claim that science cannot prove that God exists, but science cannot prove anything, even that science is valid!), at the very least the strong evidence for the Big Bang challenges those who fruitlessly try to fasten their atheism to science. Although proof of a finite past and therefore a caused universe was available to even the common people of every generation thanks to logic and math, the people of my generation must acknowledge the scientific evidence for a finite past--and admit the philosophical and theological ramifications. Christianity claims that Yahweh is the God of the Big Bang, and the fact that cosmology supports the Big Bang means that honest scientists cannot claim that science does not point to conclusions that overlap with the Genesis creation account, for the Bible and modern cosmology agree on this crucial point. In fact, there is no scientific idea more theologically significant than the Big Bang.
Some Christians dislike use of the phrase "Big Bang" because they mentally associate it with macro-evolution, atheism, or scientism, but the Big Bang has nothing to do with any of those beliefs. It is a model of the universe where matter and space originated from a single moment and point and nothing more, not an endorsement of atheism or macro-evolution--which is a total red herring when it comes to theology, as it is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the universe had a beginning and therefore necessitates a cause. I hope that Christians do not forsake the scientific concept of the Big Bang merely because they mistakenly associate it with faulty worldviews, because it definitely separates Christianity from philosophies like Bhuddism!
 |
| "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"--Genesis 1:1. The conclusions of modern cosmology directly agree with the opening verse of the Bible. Of course, since logic and mathematics prove that a past-eternal universe is impossible, the findings of science on the matter are in a sense irrelevant, as it is impossible for any scientific theory that contradicts logic to be true. |
In my last science-oriented post I mostly dismissed science's epistemological value because science is not self-evident or self-verifying, it relies on logic and math (meaning that it is not the foundation of knowledge), and it can never actually fully prove any claim about reality [2]. Here I wanted to balance that previous post by writing about some of the positive evidence that science can offer for the philosophical and theological pursuit of verifying the existence of an uncaused cause. As I have mentioned before, I love science despite its drastic epistemological limitations. I hope that I highlighted that here at least somewhat. While it is certainly no substitute for logic, science can stimulate our minds and serve as a great outlet for curiosity about the universe and its uncaused cause.
[1]. "Someone can know with absolute certainty--with no way he or she is wrong--that any possible universe must have a beginning by using logic and math, both of which contain principles that are knowable a priori; that is, for certain components of them nothing more than brief rational reflection is required to understand the proof. It is absolutely possible count down from 5 to 0. This is obvious. A person could even count down from 6,000 or 13,000,000,000 (both the general opposing estimates of the age of the universe from different ideologies) to 0, even if it takes a monstrous amount of time. But no one can count down from infinity to 0 because it is impossible to do so without a fixed starting point. Otherwise the person would be forever counting and never reach 0. In the same way, it is impossible for any possible universe to not have a beginning because the present moment of time could never arrive. Nothing could ever happen in a universe with an infinite past because there would be no starting point to reach any particular event or moment from. Because the material world--the natural world--had a beginning and nothing can be responsible for its own creation, since self-creation is impossible because something would have to exist before it existed in order to create itself, the cause of the cosmos must by definition and logical necessity be supernatural."
--http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/simulation-hypothesis-hints-of-theism.html
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-epestimic-uselessness-of-science.html
No comments:
Post a Comment