the universe

In the clues section, we look for clues to the answers to the big questions of God and meaning in life. Each topic discusses the facts and arguments believers and unbelievers use to support their viewpoint - a world of philosophy and ideas in just a few pages!

• clues
• Summary page: hints of another dimension
• truth
• Can we ever know that something is true?
• belief systems
• 4 types of belief systems.
• the universe
• Does there have to be a reason for everything?
• it looks like it was designed
• Fundamental universal laws which are finely tuned for life.
• a rare earth?
• How our Earth is just right for life.
• life
• Are we created or evolved, or both?
• science, faith and rnb
• How rnb has approached these questions.
• evolution and design
• Background information on evolution & intelligent design.
• people
• Are human beings special, or just advanced animals? (Is there anybody in there?)
• are our brains like computers?
• Neuroscience, human-ness & free will.
• right and wrong
• Are some things truly right or wrong?
• evil
• Does an evil world prove there can be no God?
• road tests
• How do different beliefs work out in practice?
• two stories
• Choosing between the two stories that explain everything.

a big bang?

Most physicists agree that the universe began out of nothing with the big bang, billions of years ago, when the entire universe was located in an infinitely small point called a "singularity", and began expanding outwards at a rapid rate. Note that this explansion was not just matter expanding into empty space, like an explosion, but was an expansion of 3 dimensional space itself.

This leads to the obvious question: what caused the big bang?

The alternatives appear to be either:

• that time, space and enormous amounts of energy and matter could appear out of nothing for no apparent reason or cause, or
• that something outside our space-time universe caused it.

It was once possible to believe that the universe has always existed, and hence didn't need a cause. Some scientists suggested theories such as the "steady state" universe, where matter is continually created out of nothing at the centre of the universe, and a pulsating universe, which goes through cycles of expanding and collapsing, but little scientific evidence has been found to support these. Since Einstein, the scientific evidence that the universe is expanding from the big bang has become overwhelming.

So let us examine the questions: Can something form out of nothing? Can something occur or exist without a cause? Or does it all point to creation by a god?

The Crab nebula

classic arguments

Philosophers have argued for thousands of years (at least since Aristotle) about this.

A classic argument is based on the observation that everything that exists has a cause. Therefore the entire universe must have a cause, outside and beyond itself, and that cause is God.

However this argument is easily answered.

• If everything has a cause, then so must God have a cause, and the argument has gained nothing. On the principle of Ockham's Razor², it is simpler to believe in the universe alone than to believe in both the universe and God.
• But if God does not have a cause, then the original proposition that everything has a cause is false, and the argument falls in a heap like a dead jellyfish - sunk by the rules of logic.

However, we may re-state the argument to say that whatever has a beginning must have a cause (whereas anything that has always existed presumably doesn't need a cause because it never had a beginning). The universe began, so it must have a cause outside itself.

This argument is worth examining.

Must whatever begins have a cause?

How can anyone say for certain? It certainly seems to be true - it makes sense, everything we know in science and life confirms it, and we don't appear to have any examples which refute it. I think most people would accept this proposition if it were applied to any less contentious topic.

The main objections to this proposition seem to be:

• It cannot be proven scientifically, and hence remains a philosophical matter of opinion.
• Believing the universe 'just happened' is still simpler than believing in some unknown cause.
• The proposition may be true within our universe, but it may not be true for its beginning.
• Some point to quantum theory, where nothing is certain, and random or unexpected outcomes can easily occur. However such events do not come out of nothing.

Despite these objections, most people would probably think that something cannot come out of nothing.

Did the universe begin to exist?

The big bang seems to imply that it did. However some mathematicians believe they can show how the universe (including time and the three dimensions of space) might have spontaneously arisen out of nothing without a cause.

Hartle & Hawking have proposed "creation without creation", more or less as follows. The space-time universe is expanding. Extrapolating backwards in a straight line leads to the conclusion that there was an origin - the moment of creation or the big bang, when 3-dimensional space and time both began. But suppose there was not a discrete origin, but a gradual emergence of time - not a straight line but a curve. Then there might not be a discrete point of creation. The universe would have no actual origin although it has not always existed.

This is difficult for non-mathematicians to even begin to understand, but it seems to disguise the fact that it is still based on something appearing out of nothing, without cause. And, again, it is speculation without evidence.

So again, it would seem that most people would agree that the big bang was a beginning.

so did a god start it all off?

Many scientists do not accept any argument which includes, or leads to, God. They believe the concept of a god is bad science and not helpful. Many believe that only things which can be proved scientifically can be considered true.

Even if the above two propositions are considered to be true, and something did cause the universe, it may not be true that a god was the cause. The cause could remain unknown. Or perhaps the cause was the initial singularity from which the universe commenced (though that would seem to simply avoid the question). Or perhaps the cause was a previous universe - but then we'd have to explain where that universe came from. Perhaps there have been an infinite series of universes - but many scientists and philosophers believe an infinite series of things is logically and practically impossible.

So many other people believe that a god must have created the universe via the big bang (God said "let there be light" = energy, and it appeared?). If that god was eternal, then it would never have have begun to exist, and thus would not contravene the first premise of the argument (just as we saw above that an eternal universe did not require a cause).

It seems plausible to believe a god is eternal. Theologians since Augustine in the 4th century, and now physicists like Stephen Hawking, believe time was created, along with the three dimensions of space, at the same time as the universe was created. God outside of the universe, would be thus outside of time, and presumably eternal. On the other hand, the universe is clearly not eternal. It had a defined start, at the big bang, and it is running down, as demonstrated by the second law of thermodynamics.

On this basis, belief in a god may explain more of the facts, and Ockham's Razor would then be satisfied.

In the end, neither viewpoint can be proven, and our final conclusion is a matter of judgment for each of us.

Tarantula nebula

like a watch?

The universe is extremely complex, yet it somehow all holds together. It works, from the structure of galaxies, through the intricate interdependence of earth's ecosystems, down to the structure of atoms and quantum theory. This leads to some interesting thoughts.

The universe and our world are put together like a precision clockwork watch, one argument goes, so they must have been designed. And if they were designed, then the designer must have been God.

However this argument is no longer powerful. Classic evolutionism says that the appearance of design on earth actually occurred due to random natural selection which favoured outcomes more fit to survive and propagate. And some cosmologists believe they can use mathematics to show that the application of known laws of physics could lead to the present structure of the universe, without any design. In both cases, given enough time, apparent order could appear without any original design or designer.

a deeper design?

But as science probes more deeply into the cosmos and into life on earth, evidence of a deeper design is beginning to emerge. A swag of cosmic constants and laws need to be exactly as they are, within very fine tolerances, for the universe to continue to exist after the big bang, and to evolve at all (see it looks like it was designed). The odds against the design of the universe occurring by chance are lengthening.

Respected scientists like cosmologist Martin Rees and string theorist Leonard Susskind have been saying for several years now that the chance occurrence of such a finely tuned universe is highly improbable - their explanation is discussed below. Susskind refers to the cosmological constant, which is obtained by subtracting two large cosmic forces, yet that subtraction is accurate to 119 decimal places.

Roger Penrose, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, who did much research in cosmology including working with Stephen Hawking on the mathematics of black holes, once attempted to calculate the probability of the initial state of the universe being exactly 'right' to allow it to still exist now. His answer was 1 chance in 10^10^123, a probability so small as to effectively be zero.

Physicist Paul Davies argued convincingly that there really is amazingly detailed design in the universe (although he has since suggested another hypothesis, as noted below). Discussing how the laws of Physics have shaped the universe since the big bang, he says: "These rules look as if they are the product of intelligent design. I do not see how that can be denied. Whether you wish to believe they really have been so designed, and if so by what sort of being, must remain a matter of personal taste."

This strong evidence has led to a number of explanations being proposed. Paul Davies suggests 7 possible options. Eminent cosmologist, Martin Rees, suggests four of these: (a) coincidence, (b) providence, (c) an underlying theory of everything, or (d) an ensemble of universes. Leonard Susskind offeres just two: God or the multiverse.

• Some argue that fine-tuning doesn't require an explanation, because if it hadn't occurred, we wouldn't be here to observe it. But this seems like a trick to avoid the obvious - we could use the same argument to avoid trying to explain the evolution of the human race.
• Perhaps many completely different forms of the universe could have been equally "successful"? Perhaps the universe was not so "lucky" after all. (However, as noted above, most scientists agree that only a very narrow range of possible values of the cosmic constants could have "worked", and it is extremely improbablethis could have occurred by chance.)
• Many scientists say simply that there must be a scientific explanation, an all-embracing theory that will explain all these apparent coincidences. Granted science's track record, we can feel confident that we will find it one day. However, increasingly, cosmologists like Rees & Susskind are arguing that this probably won't happen, that the numbers don't look like they are connected by an underlying theory. Thus, for the present, this belief is more a statement of faith than of science.
• The above difficulties have led increasing numbers of scientists to speculate that there may be absolutely zillions of universes, of which ours is the one in a zillion "success". A "multiverse" (one of the terms for this concept) can be shown to be consistent with current cosmological theory, and mathematics can be used to describe how it might work. However even its staunchest proponents agree there is no direct evidence for it and most likely there never can be. And it requires us to believe that not just one universe appeared out of nothing with no cause and no reason, but almost an infinite number of them have done so (to satisfy Penrose's probability estimate), leaving its opponents arguing that it cannot even be considered to be science.
• Paul Davies has recently proposed an explanation within the universe, that life has influenced the formation of the universe via some sort of backwards (in time) causation. I do not find this plausible or an improvement on his earlier views, and neither do almost all reviewers, but time will tell.
• The idea that the universe's design can best be explained because it was created by a god is not well received in scientific circles, because science has no method to test this option, and because many scientists cannot accept that something can be considered true if it cannot be addressed by the scientific method. Nevertheless, many scientsists, and many others, believe this is the most believable option. They also point to the immense diversity and beauty in the universe, and in the mathematical beauty of the physical laws as indicating a personal origin.
• But contrary to this, another viewpoint argues that the disorder and apparent wastefulness in the universe and on earth indicates either no god, or a very inefficient designer.

So far, none of the alternatives has been found compelling by a majority of people, so we are left with a powerful argument that the universe looks like it was designed, and quite a number of less powerful explanations. Curiously, the four options suggested by Rees all lack scientific verification, and hence all, in a sense, require faith to accept them.

the design of the earth

Some people have considered the suitability of earth for life. There are basically two views. Some say that there are so many planets that it is inevitable that many planets in the universe, and even in our galaxy, will be suitable for life and probably are home to life now. On this view, life has evolved to suit conditions on earth.

The alternative view is that earth is unusually suited for life. Proponents list hundreds of factors that are required for life to exist on a planet, and argue that these conditions are rarely, if ever, met elsewhere.

It is hard to reconcile these views. Both have developed equations to do the maths, but neither has sufficiently accurate data to be conclusive. There is a suspicion that people find what they want to find. The "rare earth" view may perhaps have a slightly more comprehensive basis, but it is impossible in reality to use the earth as a support for either a theistic or a non-theistic conclusion. See a rare earth? for more information.

the universe - reasonable conclusions

No-one can be certain about what happened so long ago. Looking at the universe around us and concluding that God created it all is a view that has a long history, and there is still a strong argument to support it. Many scientists argue vehemently that they can explain the universe, its origin and its design, from the established sciences, without the need for a god. The influence of science has weakened the argument in many people's minds, however science has actually strenthened some of the arguments - so much so that historian Frederic Burnham has argued that the god hypothesis is stronger now than it has been at any time in the past century.

Some of the main arguments against a theistic conclusion are (together with some comments):

• The theistic view is not scientifically falsifiable, an important consideration for science. (However I'm not sure if disbelief in God is any more scientifically falsifiable. Further, Leonard Susskind, a proponent of the multiverse, which falls foul of the same objection, has argued that falsifiability is a philosophical constraint the scientists need not accept.)
• The theistic argument is based on gaps in scientific knowledge (known as "God of the gaps"), which will one day be removed - it is only a matter of time. (Science has a good record in finding answers about the natural world, but nevertheless, this confidence too is a statement of faith, not science. Further, the argument for God can be based on the current scientific understanding rather than the gaps. Thus, for example, if an underlying theory of everything explains the fine-tuning, one could then perhaps question how that came about.)
• Belief in God requires faith, and science depends on reason, not faith. (But philosophers do not make such black and white assessments, and many theists argue that all knowledge requires a combination of facts and extrapolation from the facts, which we may call "faith".)
• If God is needed to explain the universe, how do we explain God? This seems to be a problem to many scientists, yet most theists feel that it is reasonable to believe that God is self explanatory and eternal, whereas the universe is clearly neither of these.

Science does a good job of explaining how things work in the universe. Whether there is a designer and creator or not, we simply cannot know from science. Those who make strong atheistic or theistic statements are using other forms of logic and knowledge. And on that basis, there is at least a reasonable case that there was some cause outside the universe. Paul Davies again: "Although many metaphysical and theistic theories seem contrived or childish, they are not obviously more absurd than the belief that the universe exists, and exists in the form it does, reasonlessly."

There are scientists on both sides of the debate (surveys suggest in the US, 60% are non-theists and 40% are theists). Several prominent scientists and philosophers have moved from atheism to theism because of the discoveries of science, while others have become more militantly atheistic. The argument is far from over.

We have considered the universe to see whether it throws any light on three basic belief systems (discussed in truth). If the theistic explanation is rejected, it seems to me that the randomness of the universe makes humanism a less plausible belief, and a more pessimistic view is more reasonable (see quotes in the references).

my personal opinion

I began writing this topic with a fairly neutral view about the evidence from cosmology, but researching it has strengthened in my mind the case for the creation and design of the universe by God. It seems extraordinary to me for a logical person to believe that the universe appeared out of nothing, and that the fortuitous values of the cosmic constants occurred by amazing chance. The speculative nature of the counter theories highlight how strong the case is. I can't help feeling incredulous that the multiverse is taken so seriously by sober scientists, and wonder whether it would be so accepted if its main alternative was not God. But science is very much oriented towards finding naturalistic explanations.

I don't think these ideas can prove a god exists, so if a person will only believe what is proven, then the universe will not convinve them. But most of us believe things on the basis of likelihood rather than proof, and on that basis, it seems to me that it is more likely that a god exists than that one of the other explanations are true.

what do you think?

Do you believe that science has all the answers, or will find them one day? Do you trust science to speak on questions of the purpose of the universe? Would you believe or disbelieve in a god no matter how difficult it is to find explanations for the origin and design of the universe? Or do you think that belief in a god is a reasonable possible explanation?

links

If this discussion interests you, you may want to review the evidence for "it looks like it was designed, a rare earth? or the references for "does there have to be a reason for everything?".

Make a comment on the forum.

Check out the clues (summary), to see more information on whether humanity and the universe give us any clues about life.

Notes:

¹ This has been a difficult topic to write about, with many pitfalls. It is not easy to deal with matters of science, meaning and faith without someone objecting that the approach was wrong. To read more about how I approached this topic, see "science, faith & rnb".

² Basically, William of Ockham argued: "of equally good explanations for a phenomenon, the best is the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts."