To purchase the entire DVD set of the Summit Lecture Series, vista summit.org.
Let’s start with the cosmological argument from the very beginning of the universe – this is the argument that many say points to the Big Bang. I just know who banged it! In fact, the evidence for the Big Bang is quite good. You even have atheists like Steven Hawking admitting that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang. Now, Hawking tries to give another explanation for the origin of the universe other than God, but he is admitting that the universe: space matter and time, had a beginning. Another cosmologist named Alexander Vilenkin put it even more forcefully:
“With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”
Now, Vilenkin is a believer in the “multiverse” – a theory that there are several universes out there and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. But, even Vilenkin admits that even if there are other universes out there, the whole show needs an absolute beginning. So you don’t get rid of the need for an absolute Beginner.
It’s interesting that he uses the word “proof”. It’s actually unusual for scientists to use this word in this context. Yet, he says that it is proven that space, time and matter had a beginning. And he says it’s a “problem”, particularly for cosmologists, because the implication for a beginning gets much too close to Genesis for their liking.
But, the idea that the universe had a beginning is so widely accepted, that it is no longer considered controversial. Even among atheists. What is controversial is what caused it. In fact, Robert Jastrow, an agnostic astronomer, wrote that while he was an agnostic on religious matters:
“Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but he essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same.”
Jastrow went on to say:
“That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
Why would he say this? Why couldn’t nature have created the universe?
Nature actually had a beginning, therefore nature was the cause. Since it was the effect of something, then it can’t be the cause. You see, if space, matter, and time had a beginning, then the cause must transcend space, matter, and time. In other words, the cause must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.
Now, when you think of a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial cause, whom do you think of? That would be God.
Some may call this a “God of the Gaps” argument, where if you don’t have an answer for something, you plug God into the unknown gaps and later on figure out that there really was a natural explanation, and you look stupid for plugging God into the gap of your knowledge.
But it’s not.
They will argue that if you just give science enough time, a natural cause will be discovered. But a natural cause will never be discovered for all of nature. Primarily, since there is no evidence of this currently the supposition that given enough time, a cause will be figured out is merely faith. Secondly, a natural cause for all of nature will never be found because nature is the effect. It cannot, by definition be its own cause.