The Case for a Creator (18 page)

“Inflation says that in the very, very early history of the universe, the universe underwent a period of super-rapid, or ‘inflationary,’ expansion. Then it settled down to the more leisurely expansion we observe today. This inflationary expansion supposedly avoids the problem of the initial conditions of the universe by blowing them out beyond the range of what we can observe. So in a sense, inflation isn’t something that is motivated by the scientific evidence; it’s motivated by a desire to avoid these special initial conditions that are present in the standard model.

“And inflation itself has been plagued with problems. There are probably fifty different inflationary models. Nobody knows which, if any, is correct. There isn’t any empirical test that proves inflation has occurred. So even though most theorists accept inflation today, I’m rather suspicious of the whole thing, because it appears to be motivated by a philosophical bias.”

I stopped to analyze Craig’s comments. As I thought about inflationary theory, I didn’t understand how it would erode anyone’s confidence in the overall Big Bang model. “Since this inflationary period supposedly happened a microsecond
after
the Big Bang occurred,” I said, “then it really doesn’t affect the question of the origin of the universe.”

“That’s right,” Craig replied. “Prior to inflation, the universe still shrinks back to a singularity.”

I put up my hand to stop him. “A
what
?”

“A singularity,” he repeated. “That’s the state at which the space-time curvature, along with temperature, density, and pressure, becomes infinite. It’s the beginning point. It’s the point at which the Big Bang occurred.”

I nodded to acknowledge the clarification. “Okay,” I said. “Then how would you assess the health of the Big Bang model today?”

“It’s the standard paradigm of contemporary cosmology,” he answered. “I would say that its broad framework is very securely established as a scientific fact. Stephen Hawking has said, ‘Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.’ ”
²³

By this point in our discussion, Craig had provided compelling facts to support the two premises of the
kalam
argument. All that remained was its conclusion—and the absolutely staggering implications that logically flow from it.

STEP #3: THEREFORE, THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE

In arguing for the existence of God, thirteenth-century Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas always presupposed Aristotle’s view that the universe is eternal. On the basis of that difficult assumption, he then sought to prove that God exists. Why did he take this approach? Because, Aquinas said, if he were to start with the premise that the universe had a beginning, then his task would be too easy! Obviously, if there was a beginning,
something
had to bring the universe into existence.

But now, modern astrophysics and astronomy have dropped into the lap of Christians precisely the premise that, according to Aquinas, makes God’s existence virtually undeniable.

Craig offered that story to punch his next point. “Given that whatever begins to exist has a cause and that the universe began to exist, there
must
be some sort of transcendent cause for the origin of the universe,” Craig told me.

“Even atheist Kai Nielsen said, ‘Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang . . . and you ask me, ‘What made that bang?’ and I reply, ‘Nothing, it just happened.’ You would not accept that.’
²⁴
He’s right, of course. And if a cause is needed for a small bang like that, then it’s needed for the Big Bang as well. This is an inescapable conclusion—and it’s a stunning confirmation of the millennia-old Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation out of nothing.”

At the time an agnostic, American astronomer Robert Jastrow was forced to concede that although details may differ, “the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
²⁵

But although logic dictates that a cause sparked the Big Bang, I wondered how much logic can also tell us about its identity. “What specifically can you deduce about this cause?” I asked Craig.

“There are several qualities we can identify,” he replied. “A cause of space and time must be an uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power,” he said. “And that is a core concept of God.”

“Hold on, hold on!” I insisted. “Many atheists see a fatal inconsistency. They don’t see how you can say the Creator could be ‘uncaused.’ For instance, atheist George Smith says, ‘If
everything
must have a cause, how did god become exempt?’
²⁶
In
The Necessity of Atheism
, David Brooks says: ‘If everything must have a cause, then the First Cause must be caused and therefore: Who made God? To say that this First Cause always existed is to deny the basic assumption of this theory.’
²⁷
What would you say to them?”

Craig’s eyebrows shot up. “Well, that just misses the point!” he exclaimed. “Obviously, they’re not dealing with the first premise of the
kalam
argument, which is
not
that
everything
has a cause, but that
whatever begins to exist
has a cause. I don’t know of any reputable philosopher who would say everything has a cause. So they’re simply not dealing with a correct formulation of the
kalam
argument.

“And this is not special pleading in the case of God. After all, atheists have long maintained that the universe doesn’t need a cause, because it’s eternal. How can they possibly maintain that the universe can be eternal and uncaused, yet God cannot be timeless and uncaused?”

At that point, another objection popped into my mind. “Why does it have to be one Creator?” I asked. “Why couldn’t multiple Creators have been involved?”

“My opinion,” Craig answered, “is that Ockham’s razor would shave away any additional creators.”

“What’s Ockham’s razor?”

“It’s a scientific principle that says we should not multiply causes beyond what’s necessary to explain the effect. Since one Creator is sufficient to explain the effect, you would be unwarranted in going beyond the evidence to posit a plurality.”

“That seems a little soft to me,” I said.

“Well, it’s a universally accepted principle of scientific methodology,” he replied. “And besides, the
kalam
argument can’t prove everything about the Creator. Nothing restricts us from looking at wider considerations. For instance, Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed the truth of monotheism, and he was vindicated by his resurrection from the dead, for which we have convincing historical evidence.
²⁸
Consequently, we have good grounds for believing that what he said was true.”

I conceded the point, but at the same time my mind began to fill with other objections concerning the identity of the universe’s cause. Among the most troubling was whether the
kalam
argument can tell us if the Creator is personal, as Christians believe, or merely an impersonal force, as many New Age adherents maintain.

THE PERSONAL CREATOR

“You said earlier that there’s evidence that the cause of the universe was personal,” I said. “I don’t see how this can be logically deduced. In fact, Smith has complained that arguments like yours cannot establish whether the first cause was, or is, alive or conscious—‘and,’ he says, ‘an inanimate, unconscious god is of little use to theism.’
²⁹
He has a point there, doesn’t he?”

“No, I don’t think so,” said Craig. “One of the most remarkable features of the
kalam
argument is that it gives us more than just a transcendent cause of the universe. It also implies a personal Creator.”

“How so?”

Craig leaned back into his chair. “There are two types of explanations—scientific and personal,” he began, adopting a more professorial tone. “Scientific explanations explain a phenomenon in terms of certain initial conditions and natural laws, which explain how those initial conditions evolved to produce the phenomenon under consideration. By contrast, personal explanations explain things by means of an agent and that agent’s volition or will.”

I interrupted to ask Craig for an illustration. He obliged me by saying: “Imagine you walked into the kitchen and saw the kettle boiling on the stove. You ask, ‘Why is the kettle boiling?’ Your wife might say, ‘Well, because the kinetic energy of the flame is conducted by the metal bottom of the kettle to the water, causing the water molecules to vibrate faster and faster until they’re thrown off in the form of steam.’ That would be a scientific explanation. Or she might say, ‘I put it on to make a cup of tea.’ That would be a personal explanation. Both are legitimate, but they explain the phenomenon in different ways.”

So far, so good. “But how does this relate to cosmology?”

“You see, there cannot be a scientific explanation of the first state of the universe. Since it’s the first state, it simply cannot be explained in terms of earlier initial conditions and natural laws leading up to it. So if there is an explanation of the first state of the universe, it
has
to be a personal explanation—that is, an agent who has volition to create it. That would be the first reason that the cause of the universe must be personal.

“A second reason is that because the cause of the universe transcends time and space, it cannot be a physical reality. Instead, it must be nonphysical or immaterial. Well, there are only two types of things that can be timeless and immaterial. One would be abstract objects, like numbers or mathematical entities. However, abstract objects can’t cause anything to happen. The second kind of immaterial reality would be a mind. A mind can be a cause, and so it makes sense that the universe is the product of an unembodied mind that brought it into existence.

“Finally, let me give you an analogy that will help explain a third reason for why the first cause is personal. Water freezes at zero degrees Centigrade. If the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity past. It would be impossible for the water to just begin to freeze a finite time ago. In other words, once the sufficient conditions were met—that is, the temperature was low enough—then the consequence would be that water would automatically freeze.

“So if the universe were just a mechanical consequence that would occur whenever sufficient conditions were met, and the sufficient conditions were met eternally, then it would exist from eternity past. The effect would be co-eternal with the cause.

“How do you explain, then, the origin of a finite universe from a timeless cause? I can only think of one explanation: that the cause of the universe is a personal agent who has freedom of will. He can create a new effect without any antecedent determining conditions. He could decide to say, ‘Let there be light,’ and the universe would spring into existence. I’ve never seen a good response to this argument on the part of any atheist.”

Putting the issue a bit simpler, British physicist Edmund Whittaker made a similar observation in his book
The Beginning and End of the World
. He said, “There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action.
For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity?
It is simpler to postulate creation
ex nihilo
—Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.”
³⁰

Craig had made a good case for the cause of the universe being personal, and yet he offered no evidence concerning whether the Creator is still living today. Perhaps the Creator put the universe into motion and then ceased to exist. Smith also makes this challenge, saying that an argument like Craig’s is “capable only of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past. It does not establish the
present
existence of the first cause.”
³¹

This objection, though, didn’t faze Craig. “It’s certainly plausible that this being would still exist,” he said, “because he transcends the universe and is therefore above the laws of nature, which he created. It therefore seems unlikely that anything in the laws of nature could extinguish him. And, of course, Christians believe this Creator has not remained silent but has revealed himself decisively in the person, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, which shows that he’s still around and still working in history.

“Again, the
kalam
argument can’t prove
everything
, and that’s fine. We’re free to look around for other evidence that the Creator still exists. Let’s see if he answers prayers, if he raised Jesus from the dead, if he revealed himself in the fulfillment of prophecy, and so forth. It seems that the burden of proof should be on the person claiming he did once exist, but he no longer does.”

Even though that seemed to make sense, something inside of me was saying,
“Not so fast!”
The
kalam
argument was a little too cut-and-dried; Craig’s evidence seemed a bit too airtight. Was his conclusion that a personal Creator was behind the Big Bang really warranted, or might there be a way to get around it?

There was too much at stake not to probe every reasonable possibility, including whether there’s an explanation that would negate the need for an absolute beginning of the universe—and thus eliminate the Creator that the Big Bang implies.