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