By Tin-chee (TC) Lo 盧天賜
For more than half of the past century, scientists, mostly atheists, believed that the universe came from a cosmic explosion known as Big Bang. This was a earth-shaking hypothesis and was quickly regarded as the “standard answer” to the question of origin of the universe.
The right mindset
The concept of Big Bang was not a pie in the sky speculation but was developed from scientific discoveries. However, we must be careful that observation is one thing, giving correct interpretation to the observed data is another. For the same set of observed data, atheistic scientists will interpret them strictly from the naturalistic frameworks whereas Christians are free to properly add to it theistic and supernatural perspectives. The difference in worldviews may result in disagreement in interpretation, but this gives Christians no right to simply discredit their observed data and write them off at one stroke. We must first understand the scientific data before we begin to judge scientists’ implication drawn from it. For if we Christians make judgment on their implication before we understand the background of their discovery, we not only hurt evangelism but also discredit our apologetic arguments. Using the discovered scientific data as a common point, I believe atheists and theists can have a productive dialogue which will turn out to be a means for fortifying the reliability of the Scripture. This is the motivation of this article.
Understand the Big Bang
Let us start with a thumbnail sketch of the Big Bang phenomenon (Ref. 1): As a train approaches the platform, the sound of its whistle heard by those stand on the platform was high-pitched. However, when a train left the platform, the whistle sound heard by the same person was low-pitched. Therefore, from the pitch of the sound, one can tell the relative moving direction of the sound source. This is known as the Doppler effect.
This effect is not hard to understand intuitively: When the train approaches the platform, the whistle sound wave is compressed because the distance between the sound source (the train) and the sound detector (your ear) is shortened resulting in the reduction of wavelength (or increase of frequency) giving rise to a high-pitched sound. However, when the train left the platform, the wavelength of the sound from the train whistle is lengthened by the stretching of the distance between the sounding body and the sound receiving body resulting in the lowering of the audio frequency, i.e., a low-pitched sound.
The same is true of light waves. First, let’s assume that the distance between the light source and the light detector (spectrometer) is constant. In this static case, light waves emitted from different chemical elements each of which is characterized by different wavelengths or colors are projected onto the spectrometer and there is a fixed set of marks on the instrument’s screen. This is how we can know from earth what chemical elements are out there in the far away galaxies. Faraway stars have different elements, so when their lights shine on the spectrometer, we can see the vertical lines like combs on the screen of the instrument; each line represents the frequency of a light wave and indirectly represents the existence of the elements. The high-frequency light is near the purple end of the spectrum; the low-frequency light is near the red end of the spectrum. However, if the distance between the light source (far away stars) and the spectrometer (on earth) is increasing or decreasing, the position of the spectral lines will be slightly different from their static position due to the direction of movement. Therefore, viewing the shift of spectrum emitted from a star, one can know the direction of the star’s movement.
In 1929 an amazing discovery was reported. A scientist named Edwin Hubble observed that the light coming to earth from a faraway galaxy is weaker than that the light coming from a proximate galaxy as expected, but what was unexpected was the spectral position corresponding to the faraway light was displaced toward the red end (i.e., shifting to the lower frequency end). Astronomers call this a “red-shift” effect. Astronomers interpreted the phenomenon of red-shift as an optical Doppler effect from which they concluded that the distant galaxy is moving away from earth. Furthermore, the farther galaxy is moving away at a higher speed than those of proximate galaxies.
The universe is expanding
The discovery of the redshift phenomenon has produced a cosmological expansion hypothesis. It asserts that the galaxies in the universe are constantly expanding in all directions. The universe has 200 billion galaxies and the solar system is one of them, known as the Milky Way. The planets of the same galaxy maintain their relative positions and orbits because of their gravitational pull. However, the distances between galaxies and galaxies have been increasing. This ongoing expanding is what we now call the phenomenon of cosmic expansion.
Evidence of explosion
Now we look at another important astronomical discovery: When two Bell Lab researchers Arno Penzias (1978 Nobel Prize) and Robert Wilson used a sensitive antenna to measure the galactic wave, they detected the presence of unexpected, but rather uniform noises throughout the outer spaces. At the same time, the Princeton physicist Robert Dicke was also looking for space microwaves. Their theoretical calculations invariably agreed without prior consultation that the universe came from the Big Bang. The “murmuring” noises were considered as the aftermath of the Big Bang explosion.
There was a beginning
The expansion of the universe inferred by the phenomenon of red-shift creates an unbelievable implication: If we go back in time to the past, everything will be in closer proximity. As we mentally go back in time further, the density of the universe would progressively increase. Ultimately, in a limited (not infinite) past, the entire universe shrinks into a condensed point that can only be expressed and understood mathematically. Scientists call it “Singularity,” which means a mysteriously wonderful Point. The Singularity represents the beginning of the universe. Some scholars call it “the cosmic cocoon” to express the idea that the universe was born from this very mathematical point.
So, the universe had a beginning which is in keeping with what Genesis 1:1 claims, “In the beginning God…” But atheistic scientists do not like the word “beginning” because “beginning” demands a cause and the beginning of the universe demands a “First Cause”. They do not like the word “God” because they think it belongs to the realm of theology not science making them to be not true to their calling as scientists.
Atheists’ nightmare
Before the Big Bang theory, most atheistic scientists and philosophers, including the Ancient Greek Aristotle, believed that the universe was eternal, having no beginning nor end setting themselves up against “Genesis 1:1” with affirms that the universe had a beginning. Their argument went like this: Your Bible says that God is eternal, having no beginning nor end, and it cannot be proved. Then why can’t we, atheists, say that the universe can also be eternal, having no beginning nor end? The problem with atheists is that they ignore the fundamental difference between the two: God is of the realm of the spiritual world, it is non-physical, and the universe belongs to the material world consisting of physical matters. But materialism (according to its definition) cannot make such distinction because they do not believe in the existence of the non-physical (or supernatural) world. Although they exalted science, their arguments were not driven by scientific methods but by their pre-commitment to atheistic philosophy.
The belief of eternal existence of the universe is constantly welcomed and popularized because it can easily avoid the very thorny question of the “First Cause”. Buddhism and Hinduism philosophies of reincarnation had led speculating people to assume that they were escaping the unanswered ultimate question of the “origin of life.” However, this “eternal universe” idea has not only unprovable, but it is not in accordance with the inductive method in the scientific realm. For example, if gravitation force is a conclusion drawn from the observation of the a falling apple, then the eternal theory of the universe should be a hypothesis that the inductive reasoning should reject, because in the material world, there is nothing we have ever seen that has no beginning. The universe is the sum of all substance. If every substance has a beginning, then the universe must have a beginning. However, this is the conclusion that atheistic scientists (even Einstein in his earlier thinking) and philosophers did not want to hear. But this Singularity notion gives an inference that atheists never could have dreamed of: That is, the universe (space-time) had a beginning.
Einstein (Ref.2)
In Einstein’s formula of general theory of relativity, he found that there contained a conclusion that the universe is inflating. But Einstein, being influenced by humanism, insisted that the universe is eternally static, and he would not accept this conclusion because the expanding universe would bring about the idea that the universe ought to have a beginning. Einstein pre-committed to his worldview and presupposed his formula was erroneous. He then forcefully inserted a cosmological constant in his own calculations to eliminate the possibility of expansion (or contraction) of the universe to ensure a stable, static, universe without beginning and ending. Einstein later publicly acknowledged that he had made a fatal mistake by inserting a fictitious constant in his originally correct equation. He said that was his biggest regret in life as a scientist. He then accepted the fact that the universe was in fact expanding which inferred that the universe did have a beginning. The spirit of scholarship demonstrated by Einstein and his boldness to surrender to the truth deserves our emulation. Later, even the British atheist physicist Stephen Hawking also was forced to say, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.” (Ref. 3)
Quick summary
The observed “Red-Shift” had inferred that the universe is expanding and the detection of microwaves noises in space had inferred that the universe was exploded into existence by this mysterious starting point–Singularity. Two questions arise:
- “WHAT caused the explosion?” or asking differently,
- “WHO caused the explosion?”
How you ask becomes a very crucial understanding of the Big Bang phenomenon.
The heart of the discussion
The entire cosmic puzzle is now shifted to the “moment” of the explosion and the nature of this condensed abstract point called “Singularity.” Particularly, we ask: Where does this singularity come from? What causes it to burst open? What exactly is inside this condensed point?
Naturalism’s Loophole
Atheistic cosmologists, in their process of seeking answers, found that they all agreed on the following points within their naturalistic framework, but they were perplexed by the theists’ counterarguments:
- Atheists assert: At this Singularity point, the density of the universe is infinite, and the universe expands from this point onward.
The perplexity is: The density of the physical universe cannot be infinite, and word “infinity” is just a mathematical concept, not an entity. - Atheists assert: Most cosmologists believe that “before” the Big Bang, there was nothing—No Thing.
Here is the problem: To say that the universe came from nothing within the material framework is inconsistent with the first law of thermodynamics. Something cannot come from nothing. Moreover, the word “before” is meaningless when time and space do not exist; there is no time to be “begun”. This is also their confusion. - Atheists assert: The aftermath of the Big Bang had to become more and more orderly in order to birth an orderly universe. From the moment of 10 to 34 seconds after the explosion, the whole process of forming the universe was so precise and so orderly that astonished the thinking minds.
Counter argument: The result of explosion of any kind that we know of must be chaos. Orderly explosion was not in keeping with the needed conformity of the second law of thermodynamics in the known physical world—another puzzle for the naturalists to unravel. - Atheists assert: Within an extremely short instant after the Big Bang (10 to the negative 23rd power), the universe expanded ten times, and its expansion speed far exceeded the limit of the speed of light postulated by the theory of relativity. For this reason and the failure of the First and Second Laws of thermodynamic, they agreed that natural laws cease to be valid (or even nonexistent) at the Singularity (Ref. 4).
Counter argument: C.S. Lewis put it well, “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in lawgiver. If the natural law ceases to valid, there is no science, if there is no science, there is no scientist. The basis of materialists’ “Science Alone” has crumbled.
The question of Origin is old
Before the big bang theory, atheists had the following “explanations” for the origin of the universe (Ref. 5):
- The universe is an illusion
- The universe is self-created
- The universe is self-existent
- The universe is a product of “Chance”
In addition to using these four “theories” to explain the origin of Singularity, scientists have added few more sophisticated speculations in modern times (Ref. 6). Although they have so many explanations, atheists were not able to reach a consensus. The theistic (Christian) worldview absolutely disagree with any of these hypotheses. Now our discussion begins to penetrate into the core of the argument.
Although the Big Bang is the hypothesis most accepted and loved by the scientific communities, no one can be categorically prove the mechanism of the cosmic formation. However, if atheists believe that it is true, they cannot escape the conclusion that the universe had a beginning, and this should give them a lot of reflections. However, Christians and theists can take comfort to use their scientific conclusions as a bridge to the gospel, thereby pointing out that the “In the beginning” of “Genesis 1:1” in the first verse of the first book of the Holy Scripture is trustworthy. Here is the point, through atheists’ inability to explain the nature of the Singularity from which the universe was developed within their materialistic framework, we can reasonably introduce the necessity of supernatural perspective as an alternative for the open minded atheists to consider.
Neither Christians nor theists can agree on atheists’ views of interpretations on the origin of the universe. The author recognizes that many Christian scholars and pastors, especially those who do not have in-depth scientific training, may quickly dismiss the hypothesis of the “Big Bang” simply because they rightly disagree with the atheist’s interpretations of the nature of the Singularity–the starting point of the cosmic explosion. The author believes such dismissal, or the appearance of it, is not conducive to evangelism and apologetics.
Because most of us do not have the discipline in cosmology to assert with authority that their theory is wrong, we can easily be misunderstood as ignorant and consequently unfavorable to apologetics–defending the Bible truth. On the contrary, if we take their perplexities to our advantage as an opportunity to introduce the possibility of the supernatural perspective to the explanation of the phenomena that the naturalistic worldview has failed to explain, this may open the eyes of the atheists and lead them to reexamine their assumptions. In view of their confusion, the important inference that atheists can hardly deny is: The best explanation for the Big Bang is that it is a supernatural phenomenon, not a natural phenomenon at least at the point of Singularity when natural laws (the bases of science) had not come into existence.
Implication of a Creator
Because all the scientific theories fail at this very point of Singularity, it represents a barrier of the physical world where science ceases to be valid and Space-Time ends there. It is a point where the natural and supernatural meet. This clearly points to the supernatural and theological alternative which points to a Creator. We then ask: What are the characteristics of this Creator (existing individual being)? The arguments for Creator go like this:
- We have explained earlier that space-time and all material things have a “beginning.” The expansion of the universe pointed to the beginning of the universe (the sum of all materials). Everything that has a beginning must have a cause for its beginning which undeniably matches our day-to-day observations. The Reality that started the space-time must be beyond the space-time. The transcendent nature of this Reality is evident.
- The word “begin” relates to time. Therefore, the one who caused the space and time to begin must not have a beginning. Without beginning, there is no need for a cause for his existence. It follows that he must be uncaused (i.e., without a cause).” In other words, he must be eternal.
- He is not restricted by time (i.e., timeless) because he is the maker of time. In the state of timelessness, he is changeless because “change” depends on “time”. The ancient theologian Saint Augustine had mentioned an extremely fashionable concept 1700 years ago: This “material universe” has an “immaterial” origin, and before God created the universe, “time” itself does not exist. Augustine stated in his Confessions: “So before you create everything, there is no time because time itself is what you created.”
- Change is time-related. He is not limited by time, so he must be changeless. From another point of view, if he is the ultimate perfection (definition of God), he cannot be changed because once the “ultimate perfection” changes, it becomes not perfect. This points to his immutability.
- He is the creator of the substance. He is also uncaused. Therefore, he must be immaterial. It follows that he must be a spirit.
Judging from these characteristics, we ask: “Is this not the Creator as described in the Bible?”
Natural and supernatural meet
Google-search on “Jastrow” yields the following paragraphs—“Though he claims on the first page of his curious little book to be an agnostic in religious matters, Robert Jastrow nevertheless believes that some current developments in astronomy have “religious implications.” Along with many other astronomers, Jastrow (1925-2008) thinks that the discovery of cosmic background radiation practically assures the truth of the Big Bang theory of the universe, but he also goes on to claim that this fact in turn “leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.” On the limitation of the human mind, he continued, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
References:
- 里程，遊子吟 (校園書房, 2003), 209.
- Roger S. Jones, Physics for the Rest of Us (Fall River), 62.
- Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler, Who Made God? (Zondervan, 2003), 58.
- Ravi Zacharias and Kevin Johnson, Jesus Among Other Gods Youth Edition (W Publishing Group, 2000), 57.
- R. C. Sproul, Defending your Faith (Crossway Books, 2003), 99-133
- Joe Boot, Searching for Truth, (Crossway Books, 2003), 67.
