COSMOLOGY

Back to Top

INTRODUCTION

Cosmology is the study of the origins, processes and structures of the universe. I must tell you that nothing is conceptually more perplexing to me than this subject. Cosmology necessarily involves considering the concept of infinity - both in time and space - and nothing in more perplexing to me than infinity. I see no way in which we cannot have infinity, yet the idea of limitless time and space challenges my experiences in which everything is limited in both time and space!

The subject of cosmology is rooted in science, religion and philosophy, although I feel that the only area that should have any relevance is science. Religion and philosophy are what humans have turned to because we have not been able to explain the origins of everything scientifically. Cosmological arguments have generally devolved into a belief that there is one or more creator of everything (i.e., God or gods), so this is where we will analyze the concepts a creator entity or entities. Since I have a more extensive section on Beliefs, most of what I have to say about specific religious stories will be covered in that section which can be reached through the main menu above.

Cosmology, the origins of life and the origins of humans have quite distinct etiologies and are separated by billions of years. Therefore, the origins of life and the origins of humans are covered under separate headings.

One problem in dealing with cosmology is that it is very complicated; nearly everything that I have read about the subject is very deep and esoteric. I will endeavor to present this subject in a way understandable to the average person.

Back to Top

SCIENTIFIC THEORIES

Despite hundreds of years of scientific research, the truth is that scientists have not been able to determine how or why the universe exists and whether it needed or had a creator. In 1905, Albert Einstein developed his theory of relativity which appears to explain the interactions of large bodies. It breaks down, however, when one tries to analyze very small objects. The actions of small objects seem to be explained by another theory called quantum mechanics. The quantum hypothesis was developed by Max Planck in 1900, but it was not until 1926 that its implications were realized, when Werner Heisenberg formulated his famous uncertainty principle. I will have more on all this later, but suffice it to say that since early in the 20th century scientists have been hard at work trying to find a unified theory that explains the properties and interactions of both large objects where gravity rules and small objects where electromagnatism rules.

I have a little paperback book entitled The Universe and Dr. Einstein by Lincoln Barnett which I bought as a teenager and which cost 35 cents. It appears to be from its seventh printing in March, 1955. On page 14, Barnett writes: "Dr. Einstein . . . is currently winding up work on a problem which has baffled him for more than a quarter century and which he appears to have at last solved. This is his Unified Field Theory, which sets forth in one series of mutually consistent equations the physical laws governing the fundamental forces of the universe, gravitation and electromagnetism. The significance of this task can be appreciated only when one realizes that virtually all the phenomena of nature are produced by these two primordial forces."

The reality is, however, that Einstein never finished that work and scientists are still working to solve these mysteries and to come up with a "theory of everything" which are the current buzz words for a Unified Field Theory or a Unified Theory of Physics.

Brian Green writes this of Einstein: "During the last thrity years of his life, Albert Einstein sought relentlessly for a so-called unified field theory - a theory capable of describing nature's forces within a single, all-encompassing, coherent framework. Einstein was not motivated by the things we often associate with scientific undertakings, such as trying to explain this or that piece of experimental data. Instead, he was driven by a passionate belief that the deepest understanding of the universe would reveal its truest wonder: the simplicity and power of the principles on which it is based. Einstein wanted to illuminate the workings of the universe with a clarity never before achieved, allowing us all to stand in awe of its sheer beauty and elegance.

Einstein never realized his dream . . . " (Greene - Universe, p. xiii.)

Some scientist, including Green, now believe that the theory of everything lies within what they call superstring theory, although it is quite apparent that they do not have a final formula and much research and debate continues.

So where is God in all of this?

Many scientists believe in a god or creator of some sort, but no reputable scientist has presented scientific evidence for a god. There are no peer reviewed papers seeking to prove the existence of any god or that a god created the universe.

Stephen Hawking concludes A Brief History of Time as follows: "However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (Hawking - Time, p.191.)

I suppose his statement assumes that, if we determine how the universe works, we will also know how it came to be. It appears to me that his statement would stand only if one assumes that in discovering this complete theory, we also find a God. Why is it not possible that the discovery of this unified theory might actually disprove the necessity of God? In fact, Hawking concludes an earlier chapter on the origin and fate of the universe as follows: ". . . [T]he laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning or end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" (Hawking - Time, p.146.)

Back to Top

RELIGIOUS VIEWS

Every religion has some sort of story as to how the physical universe came into being. Often their stories indicate how limited in space and time their scope of understanding was; i.e., their creation stories often relate only how their immediate area was formed with no concept of the vastness of the universe as we know it today. See the links under the Belief topic in the main menu for what I have about what the various religious believe about the origins and nature of the universe.

Also, you may find helpful an article found on Wikipedia which surveys the various religious beliefs as to the origins of the universe and of life, although, one cannot know from day to day the quality of the article. Click here for the article.

Back to Top

PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES

George H. Smith identifies three cosmological theories that cannot be explained without reference to a supreme being (Smith-Against, p.235). They are (1) the first cause argument, (2) the contingency argument and (3) the entropy argument. These theories are not tied to any particular religion, though there are religions that embrace one or more of the theories.

Hank Haegraaff, on the other hand, identifies four explanations for the existence of our universe. Three of them he rejects as he says they are based in philosophical naturalism. The fourth is clearly a first cause theory with the biblical God being the first cause. The three theories allegedly based in philosophical naturalism are (1) that the universe is purely an illusion, (2) that the universe sprang from nothing and (3) that the universe has existed eternally. (Hanegraaff-BAB, p.148-151)

All of the listed cause theories will be discussed below, though not in the order introduced above.

Back to Top

First Cause Theory

George H. Smith says that there are two variations of the First Cause Theory or argument as he calls it (Smith-Against, p.236). He does not specifically name the first, so I will dub it the "In the beginning, God" argument. The second variation, he calls the Sustaining First Cause argument.

The "In the Beginning, God" agrument goes like this:

Every existing thing has a cause, and every cause must be caused by a prior cause, which in turn must be caused by a still prior cause, and so on, until we reach one of two conclusions: (a) either we have an endless chain of causes - an infinite regress, or (b) there exists a first cause, a being that does not require a causal explanation.

According to this argument, an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Without a first cause, there could be no second cause, and without a second cause, there could be no third cause, and so on ad infinitum. We would then reach the absurd conclusion that nothing presently exists. But since things do exist, we must reject an infinite regress and conclude that a first cause exists, a cause which we call "god." . . .

This causal argument rests on two main assumptions: that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation, and that we cannot provide an adequate explanation within the context of the universe itself. Therefore, we must posit a transcendent first cause, a being that transcends natural cause-effect relationships. (Smith-Against, p.236-237)

Back to Top

Ex Nihilo Theory

No prepared text.

Back to Top

Eternal Existence Theory

No prepared text.

Back to Top

Entropy Theory

No prepared text.

Back to Top

Contingency Theory

No prepared text.

Back to Top

The Illusion Theory

No prepared text.

Back to Top

NOTE: The following has been moved from another part of the web site and needs to be incorporated into this section!

WHO CREATED GOD?

The Abrahamic religions believe that God created the universe. Other religions may have a similar belief, but we can certainly say that the Abrahamic religions believe that the universe is divinely created. For me that raises the question: Who then created God?

As stated in the Introduction, we humans are so accustomed to creating things ourselves, we therefore, require in our minds that everything right down to the universe must be created. But, what about God? If the universe needs a creator, should not God need a creator, also?

Astoundingly, many Christian exempt God from the necessity of being created. They believe that as the creator, God has no beginning and no end and needs no creator.

I am sure that there has been much written on this subject, but I would like to analyze an article entitled If God created the universe, then who created God? Answering the Critics by Jonathan Sarfati found on the Answers by Genesis Ministries web site.

First, the very title makes an assumption that needs to be proved and not assumed. It states: "If God created the universe…" which is not a proven circumstance and which I, as an atheist, reject.

Then, the article begins by stating: "But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question 'Who created God?' is illogical…" Well, first, I do not accept idea that God is the creator of the universe by definition and reject the idea that God even exists, so the question does in fact become logical. What the article fails to realize is that the reason atheists and others ask the question about the origin of God is because we feel that one must adequately answer the question about the origin of God to justify the very existence of God. If you cannot determine the origin of God, then that is some evidence (perhaps even all of the evidence) that you need to prove God does not exist. You cannot answer a question by defining the premises so as to do away with the question which is what this article attempts to do.

Sarfati then moves on arguing that it is provable that the universe had a beginning and all things with a beginning must have a cause for their creation, the universe included. He says: "God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause." Furthermore, Sarfati argues that God, as the creator of the whole universe, created time and "therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time…"

After arguing that the universe had a beginning and trying to prove it with an analysis of Laws of Thermodynamics, he argues that "the universe cannot be self-caused" and that "nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity."

He summarizes his points as follows (these are quotes):

Now, I do not question the argument that the universe as we know it today had a beginning. I do not know where it came from and doubt that there was any purpose in its origins as purpose requires an intelligence to establish the purpose. I do question the idea that God created the universe. Sarfati's article does nothing to establish any type of proof in that regard, because all of the "proof" offered is in the form of predefined assumptions and premises that God exists and did create the universe.

I agree that something cannot create itself, but it is as logical to believe that the universe came into existence on its own as it is to believe that God came into existence on his own. If you remove from Sarfati's argument the unproven assumption that God, as the creator, has no beginning or end and is uncreated, and require that God have a beginning and a creator, then you arrive at the same conclusion he has of the universe, i.e., that "nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity."

As I have stated elsewhere on this web site, most of the sacred documents are self-proving documents – if you already believe in what the Bible says, you will find plenty of proof in it for your beliefs. Thus, when Sarfati quotes Biblical passages he is offering no proof whatsoever. The existence of God and God as the creator of the universe must be externally provable. Passages from the Bible are not external proof and worthless in terms of evidence.

CONCLUSION

So, how did the universe come to be? I must admit that I have no idea and frankly the concepts of infinite time and infinite space are probably the two concepts that I find most perplexing. Whether I know the answer or not, every other question that I confront seems to have a logical answer, but the fact that time and space may be infinite is beyond logic to me.

What I do know is that the universe operates based upon the interaction of energy and matter in ways that never vary when the same set of circumstances repeat themselves. Particles, planets and stars interact in identical ways given identical circumstances. There is absolutely no evidence of the intervention of an intelligent force in the interaction of the planets, stars and galaxies.

I, further, know that the requirement of a creator introduces absurd concepts into the universe. If we must have a creator of the universe, then we must have a creator of the creator. If we must have a creator of the creator, then should we not then have a creator of the creator of the creator, and so on ad nauseam?

The universe exists and operates without intelligent intervention. Is it not logical then that it came into existence without intelligent intervention? Are we to believe that the creator started all of this and then just left it to run without the creator's further intervention? I see substantial evidence of the universe; I see no evidence of a creator. It is much easier for me to believe that the universe that I can see and somewhat define came into existence on its own than to believe that a creator that I cannot see or define came into existence on its own and then created the universe.

My conclusion then is that the universe did not need a creator, did not have a creator and there is no God!!

Of course, I am well aware that most religions believe that their god or gods do interact with them on a day to day basis. The purpose of this essay is to consider the "necessity" of a creator of the universe, not the alleged involvement of a god in our human lives. The latter subject is dealt with elsewhere on this web site. However, I must say that my belief is that the day to day involvement of a god in our human lives is, to say the least, pure fabrication and based upon the imagination of the human brain.

Back to Top