The question what came first into existence the chicken or the egg is quite hilarious and even my nephew find it as such. But if we really think about the chicken or egg question, we find it very challenging when the question itself correlates with the origin of the universe. There are myriads of books, essays and articles written about this interesting subject namely the genesis of the cosmos. Likewise, there are just as many books written for or against a particular thesis of the universe.
While this subject at hand is illuminating, I’ll limit myself in discussing only two opposing thesis of the origin of the cosmos here namely creationism (or referred to as special creation) and materialist hypothesis.
There are two major contender for the theory of how the universe came to existence; atheism and creationism. The former explains that either the universe have a beginning or it did not (also known as steady state theory). Either ways, according to materialism, the universe isn’t created by any God or gods. It just happened or it has always been there plain and simple. The latter on the other hand maintains that the universe as we see it today was created in a very short time span and it simply did not create itself nor has it been there all the time. Which of these two model of the origin of the cosmos you prefer depends entirely upon your presuppositions.
My presupposition begins, of course, in the first chapter of Genesis: God. But there are those who oppose and even hate such an idea because they think that God cannot and he should not be on the canvas of the beginning of all there is. God as an hypothesis is unacceptable, and unscientific if not nonsensical at best, says atheism. Militant atheists firmly believes that by invoking a personal creator for the origin of the universe is crazy if not delusional at best. Delusional or not we will now embark our journey by examining these two models for the explaination of the origin of universe.
A Constant Universe?
Nearly most atheists doesn’t agree within themselves when it comes to cosmology. There are two within the materialists camps who proposes two alternative explainations of the universe. The first camp tells us that the universe is constant and has no beginning, this model is called The Steady State theory and was proposed by a physicist Sir Fred Hoyle and others. The entire solar system, as we can see it, says the Steady State theorists, have always existed. The theory proposes that matter in the universe is being continuously generating, at the rate of a few hundred atoms per year. No mambo jambos about the first cause and effect here. Is this true that the material universe has always existed? Let us see and examine the proposition that the cosmos has always existed. Lets see if this is factual.
What really attracts the Steady State is that the hypothesis does not need a genesis of the universe. We have come along way to understand more about our solar system every since the advancement of scientific cosmology and astrophysics. The steady state theory as we have come to understand have lots of problems and it is no longer attainable as a plausable theory. The first problem of the constant universe faces is the Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Thermodynamics is an undeniable inference of the law of nature.
So what has the Law of Thermodynamics have to do with the Steady State theory? Thermodynamics has a lot of things to do with the theory in mind. First, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy) tells us that an isolated system will become more disordered with time. Thus, the theory itself violates conservation of mass. Also, the Steady State face a lot of problem from other cosmologists during mid 60′s especially when the cosmic background radiation were discovered. Even though the cosmic background radiation was predicted by the proponents of the Steady state, it nevertheless gave its prediction more the Big Bang theorists.
Big Bang Theory
Now that we have abruptly examined the Steady State theory let us sit our focus to one of the most accepted theory among secular and Christians, namely, the Big Bang theory. Unlike the former theory above, Big Bang theory proposes that the universe as a whole had a beginning. Studies in physics and astronomy have shown that the material universe did have a genesis and the conventional estimation of this event of explosion as singularity around 13.7 billion years ago.
This theory was originally argued for by a Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer, Georges-Henri Lemaître, in the late 1920′s.
The Big Bang theory was originally developed in the late 1920s by Georges-Henri Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer, an early advocate of solutions to the general relativity field equations which predicted our universe was expanding. (For cosmological theories to be taken seriously, they must pose possible solutions to Einstein’s general relativity field equations.) Though the expanding-universe solution to the field equations was derived by the Russian cosmologist Alexander Friedman in 1922, Lemaître was the first to realize that a continuously expanding universe implies that at some point in the past the universe must have been much denser and smaller, even atom-sized. (source)
Big Bang theorists explains that our cosmos inflated when a super-hot mass exploded and began expanding very rapidly, eventually cooling and forming into the stars and galaxies with which we are familiar. The universe continues to expand and cool to this very minute as we speak. The expantion of the entire universe supposedly started from an infinitesimal singularity. Besides, from its general acceptance and popularity among secular and Christian astrophysicists, it is without its dilemma and problems.
Big Bang theory, I believe, proposes a dilemma among atheists who adopts this theory as factual. Without a Designer (creation ex nihilo) which refered by Christians as God of the Bible, the theory seems to be an impossibility, for instance, how can something comes from nothing? How can nothing create something? In his article, On Creating Something from Nothing, David Darling wrote,
What is a big deal–the biggest deal of all–is how you get something out of nothing… Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either–despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others tha this is really not a problem. ‘In the beginning,’ they will say, ‘there was nothing–no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which…’ Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of certainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.
You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pregeomitric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining. [New Scientist, vol 151, Sep 14, 1996 p14.]
Not only that the atheists community can’t reconcile the theory without its apparent problem (ex nihilo nihil fit), Christian astrophysycists who have embraced the idea of Big Bang as irrefutable, scientifical fact have their share too. Secular scientists i.e. hardly sympathetic to creationism, has written a letter entitled ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ in which they express the apparent problems of the Big Bang hypothesis
‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.’
‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.’
‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’[read the whole article here www.cosmologystatement.org]
Creatio Ex Deo
Let us now turn to our third hypothesis of the origin of the universe namely creationism. We have briefly examined two competing views (Steady State and Big Bang Theory) of the genesis of the universe that are, despite of the majority of Christians embracing it, humanistic if not unbiblical in its presuppositions. So, “how does the creationist model of the origin of the universe looks like?” we might ask. Before we continue, let me first quote Henry M. Morris. Morris, in his book, Scientific Creationism, summarizes for us the aformentioned models,
The suggestion that matter evolved into its present structure far out in non-observable space is the so-called steady-state theory. That is, to offset the tendency toward universal decay, it is postulated that new matter, in the probable form of hydrogyn gas, is continually evolving into existence out of nothing somewhere out in space. The suggestion that matter evolved into its present structure far back in non-observable time has been called the big-bang theory. That is, a primeval explosion of some kind is supposed to have converted energy into matter; the explosion itself was perhaps caused by a previous gravitational collapse into a super-dense state. It is obvious by definition that neither the big bang theory nor the steady-state theory has any observational basis. In fact, they contradict both Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, they philosophical speculations, not science, secondary assumptions to avoid the contradiction implicit in the evolution model. [p.26]
The creationist hypothesis of the genesis of the universe is really quite simple. Yet explaining creationist cosmology is, nevertheless, daunting (at least for me). Let me try to explain this without confusing you any further. In their assessments in the debate of the origin of the cosmos, the Young Earth Creationists (YECs), has succesfully achieved constructing their own model that competes with the Big Bang hypothesis and, probably even more biblically coherent.
According to the cosmology of YEC, the Earth is young and this is contrary to the Big Bang model that requires billion of years old. Not only that the radiometric datings are unstable, the Scripture itself, if studied with an unbiased mind, do not require billions of years old. Dr. Russell Humprey a physicist demonstrated that Helium diffusion in radiometric dating proves conclusively that the earth is only about 6000 years old [link].
Dr. Humprey’s proposed cosmology includes a bounded universe (an opposit to the unbounded model of Big Bang) with a center and an edge. He explained that since the universe has a center and an edge, the center of the universe is also the center of a gravity well, meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge. According toDr. Humprey, the universe was created for only 6000 years ago in a smaller space but is being ‘stretched it out’ by God.
Dr. John Hartnett, a Christian physicist, proposed another Time Dilation model. It teaches that “Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth’s point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. According to the Bible, God “stretched out” the heavens (space), and this movement during creation week caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, adding to the time dilation caused by gravity, per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.” [source]
Creationists doesn’t claim that their model of the origin of the universe is infallible. They are well aware that anomalies in their theory might surface in the near future and they are willing to reevaluate for further research. However, in contending with other models of the genesis of the universe, they are sure that the creationist cosmology is far more biblically and scientifically superior than the two aformentioned models, namely, the Steady State and the Big Bang theory.
My Own Thoughts In The Origin of the Universe
I’m not a specialist in this subject and I can barely understand most of the technical terms in physics. But, you do not have a degree in physics or cosmology in order for you to come up with a intelligent conclusion that the universe must have a beginning. You don’t have to have a mind like Albert Einstien or Stephen Hawking to understand that NOTHING can create, produce, generate SOMETHING. FROM nothing, NOTHING comes: This axiom is pure elementary and even a child can comprehend this simple dictum.
Moreover, I also believe that the genesis of the cosmos cannot have created by ITSELF and therefore there must be a CREATOR; The originator for all there is. Or as the First Cause, as philosophers refers to, and this creator or the First Cause is what Christians call God. In their fine book, Many Infallible Proofs, both Henry M. Morris and Henry M. Morris III wrote and explains concerning the First Cause,
Thus, reasoning from cause-and-effect leads us to conclude that the great First Cause of all things, the prime mover, is an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, personal, emotional, volitional, moral, spiritual, aesthetic, holy, just, loving, living being. And this, of course, is nothing less than a character description of the God of the Bible! [p.112]
Without God as the Prime Cause of the origin of the material universe there will be literally nothing.
Sources & Recommended Readings______________
Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, Master Books
Henry M. Morris and Henry M. Morris III, Many Infallible Proofs, Master Books
Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos.
Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle. It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change. Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.
If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc. However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work. If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle? Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.
Newton’s principle even mentions that every object in this universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between two objects. This theory gives the implication that there have to be some objects or masses in order to attract force, i.e. gravity. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which gravity could exist at the absence of objects or masses prior to the formation of this universe.
Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here? What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it? For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive. Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly puts quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity, pertaining to general relativity. It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘’Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time. As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing. Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.
Refer to the above website 17th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity. It is mentioned that general relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity such as, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity of time known as gravitational time dilation. Let’s examine all these factors, i.e. gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation below:
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave, pertaining to gravitational waves. It is mentioned in this website 10th line after the title of ‘Gravitational wave’ that the existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it. The phrase, Lorentz invariance of general relativity…brings… the physical interactions…, here gives the implication that gravitational waves have to be dealt with physical interactions or masses. As gravitational masses have to be dealt with masses, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which Hawking mentioned that gravitational wave could exist at the presence of substances or masses prior to the formation of this universe. As gravitational waves have to be dealt with substances or masses, it is irrational for Stephen Hawking to use it to support that gravity or dark energy could exist at the absence of masses so as to create something out of nothing.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing, pertaining to the gravitational lens. It is mentioned that a gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. The phrase, a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, gives a strong proof for a must to have matters or substances in order to activate a gravitational lens. Thus, gravitational lens in general relativity needs to rely on masses or substances in order to be generated and this opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist at the absence of substance to create something out of nothing.
Refer to website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation, pertaining to gravitational time dilation. It is mentioned that gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential, under the sub-title of ‘Potential energy’ pertaining to gravitational potential. The following is the extract of the formula of gravitational potential:
The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
U = mV
where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity
From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object). If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0. Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.
Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.
Two things are responsible for the dilemmas astrophysicists face today when they deal with the universe. First there is the tussle between theism and atheism. In the beginning of the last century atheists were what they were they would espouse their cause and try and be sincere in their predictions and were not afraid of being questioned. thus in the beginning atheists espoused the static universe theory. Then came einstein who in the beginning was a believer of the static universe theory i.e space and time were static but he was afraid of being branded an atheist.
Then came Einstein’s general theory of relativity which was and is a very good theory. The fact is EInstein was far ahead of his time and the observational tools at his disposal were limited. Where Einstein went wrong was in the application of his theory. He tried to apply his theory to the entire universe rather than apply it to a galaxy. Einstein was also the first person to talk of antigravity which the present day astrophysicists conveniently remain silent about. When Einstein realised that his general theory of relativity predicted expansion he rightly predicted antigravity. Subsequently he dropped it.
Then came the power of observation that blinded the scientists to the cause of that observation. Thus was born Hubble’s expanding universe theory. Then confusion ensued thus, the big bang theory was born. The atheists who realise Hubble’s mistake try to mislead the people by the tired light theory thereby intending to mask the fact that the stars are revolving around the center of the galaxies.
When the big bang theory was born it had an appeal that it predicted that the universe had a beginning and most of the scientists blindly adhered to it without letting it be questioned. The atheists then learned to play along and learned to differ while accepting the big bang theory but insisting that it had nothing to do with the first cause. The fact is the big bang theory was hijacked. Stephen Hawking is a leading example of that branch of atheists. From the big bang theory he has graduated to the string theory and multiple universe theory also called theory of anything.
Then there is the chasm between the theists. Those who believe in literal interpretation of the scriptures and those who resolutely hold on to the big bang theory. This chasm has been well exploited by the atheists to spread confusion among theists.
In this confusion the steady state theory which was a good theory if applied with in a galaxy and not to the whole universe was shelved. In the mean time the general theory of relativity led scientists to discovering newer things about the cosmos and the culmination of it is the discovery of supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies. Einstein would be proud. Now notice that there is still no thory about the galaxies themselves.
Let us leave Einstein for a moment and go back to Newton. If there is only a single supermassive black hole at the center of galaxies how are stars actually moving away radially outwards in a spiral fashion?
Next , if you extrapolate the position of stars back wards in time, the point of origin of a star is the center of a galaxy where a supermassive black hole is lurking and would let nothing escape. A star can never form at the center of a galaxy leave alone move away spirally outwards. This implies as per both einstein and newton that there has to be another force at the center of a galaxy that is antigravity and the source of antigravity as is rightly being pointed out to Stephen Hawking that gravity cannot exist with out mass. Similarly antigravity cannot exist with out mass and the source of antigravity is a supermassive black hole of antimatter.
If there were only a black hole of antimatter and a black hole of matter at the center of galaxies it would lead to a problem that there will be stars of matter and antimatter in the same galaxy. Obviously some one has thought about it and therefore placed two black holes of matter and a black hole of antimatter in between them. That is why a galaxy has two spiral arms and not one. I know that if this fact is established they will think of ways to mislead people or probably they already have thought of the parallel universe theory. ANy rational person if he questions himself as to how three black holes are at thecenter of galaxies I have no doubt he will get the answer to the chicken and egg theory. This also solves the problem of the beginning of the universe problem.
WE come to the last bit of the zizsaw puzzle- interpreting hubble’s observations. It now falls neatly into place that the farther hubbble was looking into the universe he was looking at information that has travelled so much of time to reach him and is therfore that much old. SO the farther the galaxy he was loooking at the nearer is the star to the center of the galaxy and the greater is its velocity and therefore greater is the red shift. The neare the galaxy he was looking at the information is relatively recent and the star has travelled that much of time and therfore its velocity has decrease by that much and therfore it will have much lower redshift. Also remember that you have to apply the red shift of a star to itself and not the entire galaxy. If a star under observation has to reflect the velocity of a galaxy all the stars with in the galaxy must have the same amount of red shift which is not so even as per Hubble’s observations.