What Caused the Universe?

WHAT CAUSED THE UNIVERSE?

Y-ORIGINS APOLOGETICS MAGAZINE- ARTICLE EXCERPT There are many great apologetic books that you could leave with students if only they would read them. But they probably won’t. They might, however, skim through a magazine. So we compiled the most convincing apologetics for the existence of God and the best evidence for Jesus into two highly graphic magazines and had the designers of Relevant magazine make it look really cool.

Y-Origins deals with proofs for the existence of God ranging from arguments from Intelligent Design to the nature of man (mind, aesthetics, morality, etc.).

Y-Jesus presents the classic evidence for Christ including “Lord,

Liar, Lunatic,” Evidence for the Resurrection, Claims to Deity, New Testament Reliability and Fulfillment of Prophecy. Y-ORIGINS

ORDER ONLINE AT CRUPRESS.COM

© 2010, CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.com SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES REVIVE THE ANCIENT BELIEF IN A BEGINNING TO THE UNIVERSE IF WE COULD REWIND THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE, WHAT WOULD WE DISCOVER ABOUT ITS ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT? DID IT REALLY HAVE A BEGINNING, OR WAS IT ALWAYS THERE?

© 2010, CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.comBACK TO THE BEGINNING • ARTICLE ONE • 7 The influential ancient philosopher Aristo- they are now quite certain that the moon of his day in that he believed in an eternal tle stated, “It is impossible that movement isn’t made of cheese). It’s looking like the universe. And not being particularly fond of should ever come into being or cease to be, universe had a beginning at a point in time the implications of his own theory, he did for it must always have existed. Nor can after all. what any red-blooded super-genius would time come into being or cease to be.” Remarkably, one of the first scientists do: he fudged the numbers. He altered his to swing the pendulum of opinion back equation in order to nullify the conclusion Meanwhile, the biblical book of Genesis to the birthday-universe position was so that the universe was expanding. famously starts off, “In the beginning God entrenched in eternal-universe thinking created the heaven and the earth.” that at first he refused to believe his own University of California astrophysicist conclusions. George Smoot explains that Einstein’s main Which is it? Is the universe eternal—has it problem with an expanding universe was always been here? Or did it have a start at its implication of a beginning, an ultimate some point in time—did it have a birthday, barrier to scientific investigation.2 However, so to speak? These are the two schools of once experimental data proved that the thought that have enrolled followers since universe really was expanding, Einstein early times. (Actually, there was also a third admitted his error, calling it “the biggest school that postulated that the universe blunder of my life.”3 A existed on the back of a giant sea turtle, but GREAT they’re mostly gone now.) BRAIN’S There’s a point worth considering here: if it BIGGEST could happen to Einstein, it could happen The seesaw of opinion has tipped one way BLUNDER to anyone. Rarely is anyone completely or the other over time. But lately the weight objective when it comes to the issue of of evidence has all been coming down on a Creator. While it is true that religious the side of the birthday universe. belief and philosophy became an obstacle When Albert Einstein developed his revolu- for scientific inquiry in the days of Galileo, tionary theory of general relativity in 1916, In the old days when the Christian church trends have changed. In the modern era it his mathematical calculations pointed to dominated Western society, the creation has at times been a prejudice against the an extraordinary conclusion—the universe of the universe was taken for granted. But possibility of an intelligent Designer for the was expanding. And since if you rewind slowly the scientific viewpoint pushed universe that has kept many scientists from the tape on any expansion, you get back aside creation as well as the Creator. Now honest and open inquiry. to a point where it started, that meant the many scientists are thinking that the idea universe must have had a beginning too.1 of a creation may not have been so far off Thankfully, the truth generally comes out from the truth as they thought (though in the end and skeptics are convinced. Einstein, however, was like most scientists

8 • ARTICLE ONE • BACK TO THE BEGINNING© 2010, CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.com For Einstein and others, it was something The only explanation for all of this was that The world’s leading astrophysicist, Stephen called red shift that started the parade of space itself was expanding, causing all Hawking, who has held the esteemed posi- evidence for a universe with a beginning. galaxies to move away from each other. In tion of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics an expanding universe, from any point in at Cambridge, calls Hubble’s discovery of RED space (including our own), it would appear an expanding universe “one of the great SHIFTING that most stars and galaxies were racing intellectual revolutions of the twentieth THE away. And the farther away they were, the century.”6 The discovery that the universe BIG faster they would be racing. had a beginning has led to a new sci- BANG ence called cosmology, which attempts to THEORY understand what happened at the origin of INTO HIGH There it was in the red shift: proof that the universe, how it works, and what will GEAR Einstein had been right in the first place happen in its future. (before he fudged his formula) and that the universe really was expanding. Proof, Another line of evidence in the new field in other words, that the universe was not of cosmology comes under a name that In the late 1920s, the American astronomer eternal but had a beginning.4 doesn’t help at all in explaining how impor- Edwin Hubble noticed something unusual tant and comprehensive it really is. as he gazed into the heavens. It wasn’t a And yet not everyone accepted the proof at new planet or little green men waving at first, including a scientist named Sir Fred him from Mars; it was something both more Hoyle (former Plumian professor of astrono- tedious and at the same time more thrilling. my at Cambridge University and founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge). A Hubble had been spending countless SECOND Ironically, it was Hoyle who originally de- nights at the Mount Wilson Observatory, LAW scribed the event as a “big bang,” meaning studying the stars and galaxies and espe- OF to mock the idea. The name stuck. (Ac- cially the spectrum of color in the light they FIRST cording to physics professor Brian Greene, sent our way. He discovered that the light IMPORTANCE the term “big bang” is actually misleading from most other galaxies was shifted to the since there was nothing to explode and red end of the spectrum, which indicated no space in which an explosion could take they were moving away from us. Further- In addition to Hubble’s discovery, the sec- place.)5 But unlike Hoyle, many other sci- more, the farther a galaxy was away from ond law of thermodynamics also predicts entists began coming over to the side of the us, the more red shifted its light was and a beginning to the universe. You say you newly named theory. the faster it was moving away from us. don’t know what the second law of thermodynamics is? I beg to differ.

© 2010, CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.comBACK TO THE BEGINNING • ARTICLE ONE • 9 holes would have ceased vacuuming the prehension. This heat would have gradually Let’s say you come into a room containing universe of unsightly stars and planets. dissipated over the life of the cosmos, leav- me and a bunch of your other pals, and you ing only a tiny residual of about 3 degrees find a steaming cup of Starbucks coffee on When you see flaming suns and scorching Kelvin (–270 degrees C). the table. Being the thoughtful individual meteors, in other words, you’re looking at Additionally, in order for galaxies to have that you are, you ask, “Does this belong to a steaming cup of coffee that over infinite formed, the pattern formed by the explosion anyone?” time would have long since gone room needed to have slight variations in the form temperature. Since the universe is still full of waves or ripples. To which I reply, “It’s been there for the last of pockets of heat and energy, it cannot be According to George Smoot, these ripples month.” eternal. would result in very slight fluctuations in the predicted temperature and would Well, you’d know immediately I was wrong Who would have thought heat would be reveal an identifiable pattern.8 Thus, if the or lying (probably lying). Why? Because such a helpful clue? But wait! There is still temperatures matched up, the birth of the the coffee wouldn’t still be hot if it had another way that heat effects help to prove universe would be scientifically verified. been there for a month; it would be room that the universe is expanding. Merely discovering the temperature to be temperature. 3 degrees Kelvin would not prove that the universe actually had a beginning; the fluctuations also needed to match.9 That’s the second law of thermodynamics THE in action. This law states that everything SIGNIFICANCE Three decades later, that match would be OF continually moves from a state of order to made. TV disorder and that heat and energy dissipate INTERFERENCE over time. This is a law that has been verified by proof after scientific proof and has never been shown to be wrong. THE In the spring of 1964, two researchers at GREATEST Bell Labs observed a persistent hiss while Now let’s apply this law to the universe, DISCOVERY testing their microwave radiation detector. OF just as cosmologists have. If the universe Regardless of which direction they pointed ALL were eternal, it would have gone cold and the antenna, the static was the same. TIME? lifeless long ago. The stars would have (This is the same static as TV interference. burned out. Planets would have broken The same static that was supposed to be up into clouds of dust. And even the black gone when I paid $150 to have my satellite In 1992, a team of astrophysicists led by dish installed.) Those men, Arno Penzias Smoot launched the COBE satellite in and Robert Wilson, had discovered what order to verify the temperatures in space. scientists say is the echo from the birth of The satellite would be able to take precise the universe.7 measurements and determine whether fluctuations in temperature existed. But how could scientists know for sure that the hiss they were hearing was actually an The results stunned the scientific world. echo from the beginning of the universe? Not only was the three-degree temperature Mathematicians calculated that heat gen- confirmed, but more importantly, the pro- erated at the moment the universe began files of the fluctuations were discovered to would have been enormous beyond com- be a match with what had been expected.10

10 • ARTICLE ONE • BACK TO THE BEGINNING © 2010, CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.com Hawking called the discovery “the scientific sion is deemed correct.15 Genesis literally had no reason to believe discovery of the century, if not all time.” Tests from an array of radio telescopes there had been a beginning.”21 The Genesis Smoot himself excitedly stated to news- at the South Pole have confirmed the big account of creation and the big bang theory paper reporters, “What we have found is bang to a still higher degree of accuracy both speak of everything coming from evidence for the birth of the universe.”11 He than ever before.16 Background radiation nothing. Suddenly the Bible and science also said, “If you’re religious, it’s like look- measurements exceed 99.9% of what had agree (a discovery somewhat embarrassing ing at God.”12 been predicted.17 There are now more than to naturalists). Smoot admits, “There is no 30 independent confirmations that the doubt that a parallel exists between the big

THE EVIDENCE HAD BEGUN TO ADD UP, AND SOME SCIENTISTS WEREN’T LIKING THE SUM. Astounded by the news, Ted Koppel began universe had a one-time origin.18 bang as an event and the Christian notion his ABC Nightline television program with of creation from nothing.”22 an astronomer quoting the first two verses New telescopes such as the infrared Spitzer of the Bible. The other special guest, a Space Telescope, launched in 2003, have The evidence had begun to add up, and physicist, immediately added his quote of opened up even bigger windows to our some scientists weren’t liking the sum. the third Bible verse: “In the beginning God universe. They have prompted astronomer created the heavens and the earth. … And Giovanni Fazio, from the Harvard-Smith- God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was sonian Center for Astrophysics, to remark, light” (Genesis 1:1, 3).13 “We are now able for the first time to lift the cosmic veil that has blocked our view.”19 Evidence like that provided by the COBE satellite virtually makes other confirma- As a result of the accumulating evidence, TRYING tions of the big bang superfluous. (Ho-hum, the scientific community has long since TO the universe had a beginning.) But it raises begun asking questions about origins, such AVOID some rather intriguing questions. as the following: THE BAD • What was there before the big bang? DREAM THE • Why did the big bang result in a uni- QUESTIONS verse enabling life to exist? THAT • How could everything originate from FOLLOW nothing? THE A beginning to the universe brought sci- EVIDENCE entists face to face with the question of a Smoot ponders what was there before the primary cause. That argument is a simple beginning: “Go back further still, beyond logical syllogism: the moment of creation—what then? What Einstein’s theorems based on his theory of was there before the big bang? What was relativity predict that the universe could not 1. Everything that has a beginning had there before time began?”20 have begun without an outside force or Be- a cause. ginner.14 Since Einstein’s theory of relativity 2. The universe had a beginning. The same astrophysicist notes that “until ranks as the most exhaustively tested and 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. the late 1910’s … those who didn’t take best proven principle in physics, his conclu-

© 2010, CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.com BACK TO THE BEGINNING • ARTICLE ONE • 11 But admitting a cause leads to the next These theories fit neatly with the philoso- logical question: who or what is the cause? phy of naturalism, whereas a beginning of the universe would raise the obvious ques- Think about it for a minute. What existed tion, who was there to start it? Professor before the beginning? Well, since time, Dennis Sciama, Hawking’s supervisor while space, matter, and motion are all a part Sir Fred Hoyle (he who mockingly coined he was at Cambridge, admits his reasons of the created universe, whatever existed the term “big bang”) was one scientist who for supporting the steady state theory: “I before the beginning existed in a timeless, strongly opposed the concept of a begin- was a supporter of the steady state theory, spaceless, motionless state. ning for the universe. Along with Hermann not in the sense that I believed that it had Bondi and Thomas Gold, Hoyle offered the to be true, but in that I found it so attractive So the question then becomes, what can steady state theory in 1948. This was an I wanted it to be true.”24 happen spontaneously from this state of af- attempt to show that the universe is eternal fairs? There’s nothing moving, there’s noth- after all, even though the evidence had An origin of the universe meant naturalists ing colliding, there’s … well, nothing. Not long been trending against such a view. were suddenly faced with the questions even the potential for anything to happen. The steady state theory collapsed from its that threatened their world of confidence own internal weakness. and predictability. You see where this is all leading, don’t you? Something outside of space and time, Next came the oscillating-universe theory. something very powerful and with apparent According to this concept, the universe ex- volition, must have acted to bring about the plodes, contracts, and explodes again, eter- beginning. That is, there must have been nally yo-yoing. This would be another way A an intelligent Designer of the universe. to permit a belief in the eternal existence of ONE Some might go ahead and use the name the universe. But the physics for this theory TIME God for this Creator. didn’t work. (Suddenly the universe-on-the- BEGINNING back-of-a-sea-turtle hypothesis was looking Well, in certain academic circles, this line mighty attractive.) of reasoning simply won’t do. And since a Hoyle and other scientists fervently pur- primary cause is beyond the limits of sci- More recently, some scientists, includ- sued alternative explanations to a one- ence, naturalists have looked for a way to ing Hawking, have begun considering the time origin of the universe. Eventually, prove that the universe didn’t have a begin- so-called multiverse theory. This theory however, the evidence showed clearly that ning. Smoot remarks, “Cosmologists have accepts that our universe is finite, but the universe had a beginning, and the big long struggled to avoid this bad dream by it suggests that ours is just one of many bang theory was proclaimed victorious. seeking explanations of the universe that universes. The whole mega-universe may Ironically, it was evidence from Hoyle’s avoid the necessity of a beginning.”23 be eternal, according to this theory, even own research that helped confirm that the though our particular universe is not. This universe had a one-time beginning. theory is covered in more depth in another article in this magazine, but the key point to get about it right now is that it has no evidence whatsoever to support it. Today most cosmologists and physicists accept the big bang theory as the scientific explanation of how our universe began. In fact, scientists believe they can trace the history of the universe all the way back to

14 • ARTICLE ONE • BACK TO THE BEGINNING© 2010, CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.com 10-43 of a second. At that point all of the laws of nature break down and science can see no further back. The very beginning of the universe remains a mystery.

Imagine rewinding the universe back to its beginning, a time when there were no stars. No light, matter, or energy. Not even space or time. Suddenly an enormous explosion erupted from this nothingness at a temperature exceeding a million trillion trillion degrees.25 Immediately time began. Then matter, energy, and space began tak- ing form. 16. E. M. Leitch et al., “Measurement of NOTES Polarization with the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer,” Nature 420 (2002): 772-87; 1. Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe When a bomb ejects shrapnel into the air, J. M. Kovac et al., “Detection of Polariza- (New York: Vintage, 2000), 81-82. both the bomb material and the space it tion in the Cosmic Microwave Background 2. George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrin- blows into have already been there. Howev- Using DASI,” Nature 420 (2002): 772-87; kles in Time (New York: Avon, 1993), 36. er, in the beginning of the universe, neither Matias Zalarriaga, “Background Comes to 3. Greene, 81-82. space nor matter existed until the explo- the Fore,” Nature 420 (2002): 747-48. 4. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of sion. The space surface of the universe and 17. Gregg Easterbrook, “Before the Big Time (New York: Bantam, 1990), 38-51. the newly created matter expanded from an Bang,” U.S. News & World Report special 5. Greene, 83. inﬁ nitely compressed point of nothingness. edition, 2003, 16. 6. Hawking, 39. 18. Hugh Ross, “Big Bang Passes Test,” 7. Smoot, 80-83. According to the big bang theory, this ex- Connections, Qtr 2, 2003. 8. Ibid., 187. plosion launched the entire universe, from 19. Paul Recer, “Newest Space Telescope: 9. Ibid., 240. the most distant galaxy, to the most colorful The Spitzer,” Seattle Post Intelligencer, 10. Ibid., 241. nebula, to quasars ﬂ ashing like beacons, to December 19, 2003, A17. 11. Associated Press, “U.S. Scientists Find our own comforting sun and nearby plan- 20. Smoot, 291. a ‘Holy Grail’: Ripples at the Edge of the ets, to you and me with our questions about 21. Ibid., 30. Universe,” International Herald Tribune where we came from and what it all means. 22. Ibid., 17. (London), April 24, 1992, 1. Since man alone thinks about the meaning 23. Ibid., 291. 12. Thomas H. Maugh II, “Relics of ‘Big and purpose of life, the beginning—and the 24. Stephen Hawking, ed., Stephen Hawk- Bang’ Seen for First Time,” Los Angeles cause of that beginning—must be fascinat- ing’s A Brief History of Time: A Reader’s Times, April 1992, A1, A30. ing to each one of us. Companion (New York: Bantam, 1992), 63. 13. Nightline with Ted Koppel, ABC, April 25. Bradford A. Smith, “New Eyes on the 25, 1992. Universe,” National Geographic, January 14. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the The verdict is in on the question of whether 1994, 33. Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: the universe is eternal or had a beginning. NavPress, 2001), 224. The idea that everything in the cosmos 15. Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind originated from nothing seems mythical, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), yet it is now mainstream science. 230.