How did it All Begin

This will begin a three part inquiry into the relation between God and science. In this first piece, we will look at the origins of the universe. In the second part we will look for God in the history of biological evolution, and in the final part we will look at the relation between God and time. This exploration builds on my earlier article, THE PROBLEM OF SUM.

————————-

Humanity has wondered where they came from since they were first able to reason. Early societies invented myths and fantastic legends about our history. The Jewish people presented the theistic account of Genesis. The philosophers of Greece tried to discover the answer through reason, but even they often fell into myth. Finally, modern science has attempted to answer this question. But where do we now stand? Are we really any closer to knowing how it all began?

This exploration will transport us to the beginnings of the universe and carry us with its history as it evolved, asking the question: could this all have come about by chance, or does it point to a Creating Love behind, the very love which is the reason for existence itself? To arrive at my conclusions I will be exploring deeply into the revelations of modern science and ancient philosophy. Because of the fact that science leads me to the conclusion that the world was created, I understand that much of my views will be immediately discarded. The very mention of a potential Creator, or God, is anathema to much of the scientific community. But I would ask my readers to follow with me through the ensuing arguments, and consider the implications of my conclusions.

Scientists currently like to refer to the Big Bang as the accepted beginning of existence. Exploration beyond this moment tends to fall into the realm of fantasy. Certainly, there have been some interesting theories posited to describe the circumstances which may have led up to the Big Bang, but it is impossible to test such theories, and so they remain and will continue to remain speculation. That the Big Bang was the “beginning” is clear in so much as there was no time before this event. One can suppose that all the laws of our universe (including time) were birthed at this moment. So if there was something prior, it could not be measured by our time, nor theoretically by the laws of science as we know them. Even using words such as “before” in reference to the Big Bang verges on nonsense. In the final chapter we will look deeper into the concept of time and its limitations.

Instead of handicapping ourselves by using words indicative of time to speak of a circumstance when time did not exist, let us speak rather of causes. The Big Bang was the cause to which the universe and time itself are the effects. Aristotle teaches convincingly that causes cannot proceed from prior causes ad infinitum. (Metaphysics: 994a1) Thus we are obliged to ask whether the Big Bang was itself an effect, to which there was another efficient cause, or was it the original cause?

When scientists do speak of what may have caused the Big Bang, or what may have come before, they tend to arrive at two generalized conclusions: those who find the Big Bang to be an acceptable beginning—in that time, matter, motion, and the laws of science sprung out of it. They agree that to speak of a before is nonsense, nor do they speak of any prior cause. The Big Bang is itself the first cause of which Aristotle spoke. The second group pose theories of potential antecedent universes, or a universe in an infinite pattern of expansion and contraction.

Let us first treat the latter conclusion. Here again, Aristotle’s law of cause and effect must be considered. For if the Big Bang was an effect, what caused its cause? If the universe has been contracting and expanding repeatedly, what started it off the first time? Or if it has been proceeding ad infinitum, how did the effect which is us, ever come to be? The only way around the necessity of a first cause is through an acceptance of infinity. But there can be no infinity in actuality, only in theory and potential. Once something reached the infinity which had been potential, it would no longer be infinite. If time went back infinitely, we could not have reached a now. By reaching the present, time would have become finite. As another example, scientists speak of the possibility of the universe being spacially infinite, but by that they simply mean that it has the potential to expand infinitely, yet at every point toward that expansion, it will still be finite. Aristotle defines infinity as “that which is incapable of being traversed, or that which admits only of incomplete traverse.” (ibid. 1066a35) This definition confirms that infinity is in potential, for in actuality it is never traversed. Those who speak of an infinite prior history try to defend it through the relativity of time and motion, the knowledge of which indeed refutes one of the Philosopher’s primary examples in his argument of cause and effect. But while time and motion are indeed relative, cause is not. Therefore, to posit an infinite series of causes leading up to the Big Bang, it would require an infinite causal path to have been traversed, which is impossible.

Let us now proceed to examine the possibility that the Big Bang begat everything. This is certainly a neat and tidy theory. Through experiment and observable data it has become increasingly obvious that the Big Bang is a true theory (obvious enough, in fact, that scientists now often refer to it as “the standard model”). But to stop the search at the “how” of the universe’s birth without asking “why” this supremely hot, supremely dense something was there to go Bang! is rather like me saying that it was the work of God. The Big Bang might indeed be the cause of everything which followed, but it cannot have caused itself. St. Thomas Aquinas says, “there is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.” (Summa Theologica, Q. 2 A. 3)

For those who argue that the Big Bang itself is the first cause, they are essentially claiming that it also caused itself, and thus, it is very like a god. This is as much a statement of faith, as the Christian who claims God as the first cause. In both cases there is an admission that science has reached its limit. The Big Bang itself, becomes God, or if you prefer, that something which Banged is the cause, the creator of all.

I am arguing from the assumption that there was something which banged. Some have tried to argue that there was not something, but that the bang itself, out of pure nothingness, caused the first matter. They defend this with lab evidence of particles popping into existence from pure nothingness. But this argument is simply a play with semantics, for these particles which they claim to be popping into existence are borrowing from the energy of their surroundings, in accordance with Einstein’s E=mc2 equation. For this to happen, it requires both the presence of energy and the necessary (extremely hot) environment. This may indeed approximate many of the conditions at the time of the Big Bang, or shortly thereafter. But we cannot say that something came out of nothing, for as Einstein has taught us, energy is itself something. There comes a temperature and a density at which matter and energy are indistinguishable. Thus, cause and effect still apply, just as Aristotle taught so long before this era of quantum physics.

The existence of a first cause is absolutely necessary based on our laws of science and logic. The surprising thing which is hinted at by this truth, is that this first cause does not seem to be bound by these laws of science and logic. Either our knowledge is incomplete (a frustratingly likely possibility), or else the first cause of our universe came from a realm outside our universe and was therefore not bound by our laws (otherwise, how could it have caused itself). Though the Christian speaks of this as God, many mystics and scientists speak of similar possibilities. Whatever you want to call this something which is outside or unbound by our laws—and in that it gave what birthed our laws, it must be considered greater than those laws—it is a god, just as the Big Bang, if it effected all existence, would be a god. Is what I speak of an abstract essence outside our universe, or is it a very personal, creating God? Did the Big Bang happen by mere chance, or was it ordered and directed?
Perhaps we can discover an answer in the Big Bang itself.

This is not the place, nor am I the scribe to give a detailed narration of the Big Bang. If my reader is interested in exploring what actually happened in the moments following the universe’s inception, I would recommend Stephen Weinberg’s short but informative book “The First Three Minutes” (Basic Books, New York, 1977). Yet by discussing several of the general circumstances which have been shown to be present during the bang, it will shed light on our present question.

At the moment of the Big Bang, matter and energy were said to be infinitely dense and infinitely hot. In such terminology, theoretical physicists have blurred theory with reality since, for reasons just discussed, infinity cannot actually exist. But that it was hot and dense beyond our ability to measure or define is certain. As time and space unfurled in the bang, matter and energy (which at that density and temperature are the same thing) spread out over the new expanding universe. At that moment, existence was completely smooth, in that everything was exactly the same. It was incredibly simple. Scientists speculate that rather than the four forces we observe in nature (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational) a single unified force existed. This has not been proven, but it seems likely.

As it quickly spread and cooled, the first molecules formed. The forces separated. More molecules formed and nuclear fusion began to take place. Eventually stars and galaxies formed, a chunk expelled from a supernova became earth, and now here we are to speculate about it all.

When studying these events in detail, two remarkable facts appear. The first is how unlikely it seems that from such a chaotic expulsion of energy, the universe would have survived in a way to produce the complexity we see, and that life could have survived, even in this one tiny corner of it. If the bang had propelled things even a micro-degree faster, the solar systems would have burned up before they had a chance to form. If it had been a micro-degree slower, the gravitational forces would have crushed everything before it had the remotest chance to develop as it has. If any of the four forces had been even the tiniest bit stronger or weaker, they would not have been able to maintain balance, nuclear fusion would never have occurred, and the universe would either be nothing but free particles, or else one dense, impenetrable mass. From a mathematical perspective, the chance that it would happen as it did, must be considered a statistical impossibility. So why did it happen like it did?

The second remarkable fact may shed some light on the first. This is that the laws of science themselves developed. Why are there four forces? Why the relationship between energy and matter, between space and time? Why the marvels of chemistry and biology? Why does it work? To this question Einstein answered smugly, “I doubt the good Lord could have made it any other way!” Were these very laws what forced the Big Bang to happen in a way that allowed the universe’s survival, and life therein?

Even if we accept that it was these laws of science which forced the precision of the early universe, urging it toward complexity and life, we must ask how these laws of science arose. Could there be a potential world where science behaved differently? Or is the fact that this is the only way it can be cause not to question it, not to ask why science is how it is?
I think not. Rather, in these two remarkable facts about the Big Bang, we are pointed back to the moment of its beginning, the cause for everything which followed, including the laws of science. In any fine work of human hands, be it a building, a work of art, a symphony of music, or scientific formula, we are pointed back to the genius of the maker. So the world points us to the genius of its cause. As the artist, in his creating, is not himself limited by the same laws which govern his canvas, so that which caused the Big Bang, is not limited by the laws of science. There must necessarily be a force that is outside these laws, which causes all the subsequent effects. We spend so much time analyzing the book of science that we forget to ask who wrote it!

We find it difficult to admit to the existence of a divine being (and here divine can be defined as anything existing outside our laws, which may have caused the Big Bang), because it is so outside our realm of thought. Our laws of science cannot get us over the hump into the realm of the metaphysical. And so we keep trying to explain away God with the science he created.

We are left with a final question—Why?

Why were these laws of science written, either by God, or by conditions as they were in the universe or ante-universe, such that we could be given the gift of life? Why did the Big Bang happen at all, and why did it allow for all the wonder of our world. The answer is love.

Because of love, God gave the Big Bang as his breath of life. The first cause was goodness and love. Because of love he made certain that the statistical impossibility became a reality. And because of love, he created all the science which we use to comprehend his work… and to explain him away. Yet we can only speak of scientific law because God allows us some knowledge of his work. We cannot examine God with the same type of knowledge with which we analyze the things of this world. Doing this, we approach the implication that God is, because we can think of him. But rather the opposite is true. As St. Augustine says, God does not know us because we are, but we are because he knows us. (De Trinitate, XV. 13)

The logic of cause and effect show us that there must be a first cause, and the laws of our science and logic necessitates that the first cause be unbound by these laws. Because infinity is impossible to traverse, there must be a beginning. Through our observation of the Big Bang, we are led to conclude that its cause ordered it for success, and if so, this would be an act of love. This love, we know as God.