A Big Bang Needs a Big Banger

It's accepted by most scientists that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning.  There are other theories but those are largely unsupported by the science and evidence available.  The beginning of the universe is referred to as the Big Bang.  All of nature didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.  There was no time, no space, no matter.  Some people have argued that the Big Bang is proof that God didn't create the universe and therefore does not exist.  However, the Big Bang actually strengths the argument for a Big Banger.  I wish I could take credit for the title of the post but I borrowed it from Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason.

The argument for a Big Banger is commonly called the Cosmological Argument and goes like this:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore the universe had a cause

The conclusion is valid if the first two premises are true.  Looking at the first premise is it true that everything that has a beginning has a cause?  What things that have begun to exist didn't have a cause?  Let's suppose you are walking along and see a watch laying on the sidewalk.  Is your first thought that it appeared out of nowhere without a cause or without being dropped by someone?  No, in fact we know that the probable cause is someone left it there either by accident or on purpose but we know it didn't pop out of nothing.  Nothing comes to be with a cause.  This is the law causality and to deny that law causality is to deny science.  Science is the study of effects and to determine their causes.

The objection that follows this is "Who created God?".  The premise is that everything that began to exist had a cause not that everything has a cause.  God is eternal and doesn't need a cause because he's always existed.  But then the person might say "Well if God doesn't need a cause neither does the universe."  While it might be logically possible that the universe is eternal, based on the science it doesn't seem that it's actually possible.  To say the universe is eternal is to deny Einstein's theory of relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, an expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, and many other pieces of evidence.

That leads into the second premise that the universe had a beginning.  It's unanimously accepted that the universe had a beginning.  The universe is expanding from a single point in the far distance past.  The Big Bang happened and the universe came into existence.  In the moment right before the Big Bang nothing in the universe existed, no time, no nature.  Things don't create themselves and nature is no exception.  Things also don't come from nothing.  The universe had a cause and that's referred to as the First Cause. 

What sort of characteristics would the First Cause have?

• It would have to be outside time (timeless), space (non spacial) , and matter (immaterial) because it caused time, space, and matter.
• It would have to be unimaginably powerful to create the universe.
• It would have to be extremely intelligent to create all the laws of physics, the universe, and the conditions for complex life.
• It would have to be personal to make a choice to create.  Impersonal forces (i.e. nature) can't make choices.

These are all the attributes theists ascribe to God.  The Cosmological Argument is just one of several powerful arguments for the existence of God.  It shows that it's not only reasonable to believe in a creator but given the evidence I believe it's the most reasonable explanation for the beginning of the universe.

Resources
William Lane Craig has developed the Cosmological Argument in depth and does a great job of defending it.  He's debated several times on the subject and always does more than hold his own.  Below are some resources that develop and explain the argument well.

Books


Website: Stand To Reason

Remembering Aunt Georgia and Steve Jobs

A couple weeks ago my aunt Georgia passed away.  She was 90 years old and lived in Wyoming on several acres still living life to the fullest.  My uncle passed away 27 years ago so she had been a widow since then.  She was my dad's sister and the oldest of 9 kids with her being the only girl.  She lived a life that if you told most people they wouldn't believe it. 

She was raised in the depression era in a large family.  My grandparents had nearly nothing and raised their kids in a small cabin my grandpa built on land they squated on.  No indoor plumbing, no electricity, none of the comforts we all enjoy today.  Even hearing the stories of growing up my dad and uncles tell and seeing pictures it's still hard for me to imagine growing up like that.  That was just the generation before me and it's hard to believe how much things have changed since that time.  Not just for me but for all of my uncles and my aunt.

As I sat there and listened to the pastor tell the story of my aunt's life I certainly felt a sense of loss and sadness for the family she left behind.  But what I felt more was a measure of joy that she'd lived a great life and impacted those people around her in a positve way.  I can't picture her any other way than with a smile on her face.  The other thing I remember about her was selflessness.  She had 6 kids, 5 boys and 1 girl.  Her daughter was born with a severe handicap and up until about a year ago my aunt took care of her by herself.  I've heard my dad and several of my uncles say she was like a mother to them.  Why?  Because she took care of them.  She impacted those around her in a very relational and meaningful way.

A few days after returning from Wyoming I was sitting in a restaurant with my family and saw the news on the wall mounted TV that Steve Jobs had died.  I felt sadness for his family and for their loss.  He also impacted people but in a different way.  He did it through the products Apple developed.  I've seen all sorts of tributes but these were not people he impacted in a personal and relational way.  I felt a sadness for his family and those close to him.  I felt no sense of joy though.  My thoughts immediately went to the billions he'd amassed and now for him it was just gone.  As they say you can't take it [wealth] with you.

As I thought about both deaths the contrast between their lives was obvious.  I knew immediately why I had a sense of joy when thinking about my aunt and a sense of sorrow when thinking about Jobs.  I had  joy when thinking about my aunt because I can feel confident in her eternity.  The pastor said at the age of 13 she accepted Jesus as her savior.  I don't know how or who she was with but there it was plain and clear.  Jesus promises we'll know God and see heaven through him and only him and she's there now waiting for those of us that are Jesus followers.  My joy is knowing I'll see her again when I join her in heaven.

The lack of joy and my sorrow for Steve Jobs and his family is because of the uncertainity of where his eternal resting place is.  From everything I've ever read about Jobs he was zen Buddhist which is an atheistic believe system.  Now I'm not going to say where Jobs is at right now because God is the judge of our hearts.  He may very well have accepted Jesus at some point before he died and I may get to met him in heaven.

My point isn't 'Jobs is in hell', so don't let that be the take away.  I liked the guy too and own an Apple product or two myself.  My point is I don't know and it makes me sad.  However, I have good certainty where my aunt is and in that case I feel joy.  My family knows I'm a Jesus follower and when I die they can have certainty of where I'm at and how they can join me when they die.  I'm glad my family and friends can have that same sense of joy that I have for my aunt Georgia and those she left behind.   I'm even more thankful they won't have any sense of doubt about what's happened to me like I have about Jobs.  I'm not sure if you'll get to meet Steve Jobs if you follow Jesus but I know you'll get to meet my aunt Georgia.  Meeting my aunt Georgia is a good thing.