The Big Bang and Theism
Science cannot explain how the universe came to be, it can only endeavor to explain how the universe came to be the way it is from the way it was. Science can do something for us in this matter, however: it can tell us that the universe as we know it had a beginning. As far as physics goes, in fact, there is no coherent concept of "before" that beginning. Time itself began at the Big Bang. So using the faculty of mathematical reason, it can trace the course of history back to a time where there was a singularity (of course, that is not to say we have anywhere approaching a complete understanding of the universe back to that point). So, we are left with a single glaring instance for which science, whose mission it is to trace causation, cannot provide a cause: what caused the singularity? A subset of this question is: what caused the singularity to begin expanding (the Big Bang)?
Unfortunately, the only real conclusion this line of thought can reach is that there is either a supernatural uncaused cause (god[s]) that created the singularity or the singularity is itself a supernatural uncaused cause. So which is it? Are we all "gods" (or part of an omni-god: the uncaused existent we call "universe") or were we created by god(s)? Here, again, science might be able to suggest a solution. Our universe operates the way it does thanks to certain physical constants, which, if they were even modestly different than they are, could have resulted in a universe devoid of life as we know it. So if we assume that these constants had an equal probability of being any value, we can see that the odds would be infinitely against them being exactly what they are now. The "fine tuning" of these constants can been taken as a teleological explanation for the existence of a supernatural entity. That would make us, or something even better than us that can also exist as a result of the physical conditions of the universe, special. But, even though this may be true, it is an unsatisfying proof for the existence of a god.
In fact, if both a supernatural entity (or several, as we have not yet addressed the possibility of many gods) and the singularity exist outside of time, neither one can be assumed to require a cause in the temporal sense. So, if we are to list what we know, perhaps an explanation will manifest:
- While the universe was a singularity, there existed no time. [uncaused existent: universe]
- Time began when the singularity started to expand [uncaused existent: Big Bang] and from this point forward, scientific inquiry into normal causation became possible.
If there is no supernatural "first cause," then we neither have any real explanation for why the universe exists nor why the singularity began to expand 13.7 billion years ago. We would then need to posit two uncaused existents: the singularity itself and the Big Bang. If we posit the existence of a supernatural entity who caused both the singularity to exist and then caused it to expand, we need only posit one uncaused existent, namely that supernatural entity. But there is an important consideration that needs to be clarified, here:
If time did not begin until the Big Bang, then it does not make sense to call the supernatural entity the "cause" of a singularity existing outside of time since causation implies the existence of time. To this, I have two replies. First, we do not understand what it means to be outside of time: we simply cannot comprehend it. It may very well be the case that causation can make sense. This response is, however, clearly unsatisfying. My second response would be that perhaps it is the case that no singularity existed outside of time at all, but rather it was created at the moment it began to expand, i.e. the first moment of the expansion was not only the birth of time but also of the universe itself.
So what can we conclude about the existence of a supernatural entity? If we rely on the idea of simplicity, or Occam's Razor, we would decide that there are fewer hard-to-support assumptions in positing the existence of a single uncaused existent as opposed to two. But for two reasons, our conclusions would be unsatisfying again: (1) we have already accepted that the Big Bang and the existence of the singularity may have been coterminous, even though that term is hard to apply in a time-free context; so perhaps we are not really considering the position of two uncaused existents, but just one; (2) the principle of simplicity is merely a guide, it does not provide a proof.
Labels: cosmology, philosophy, physics, religion
