From Nothing to Something: Why Theism is the better explanation
by guest blogger Eric Chabot
In a previous post, we reviewed some of the basics of the cosmological argument
I said that perhaps we can remember the line from the Sound of Music that says, “Nothing comes from nothing nothing ever could.” Sadly, there are those that say that “something can come from nothing.” There is a theory called Quantum Physics which attempts to say that things can pop in and out of existence without resorting to any cause. But this is problematic since the latest findings in cosmology show that everything in the known universe—all time, space, energy, and matter—was once contained in a point of infinite density known as a singularity. This means there was “nothing” before there was time, space, matter, and energy. Also, Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity shows time, space, and matter are co-relative. They are interdependent on one another-you cannot have one without the other. So to say that particles can come into existence out of nothing is incorrect. These particles arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum which constitutes an indeterministic cause of their obligation. So the vacuum is not “nothing” but it is sea of fluctuating energy endowed with rich structure and subject to physical laws.
There is something else that strikes me as problematic to the naturalistic answer to this issue: If we were to posit that The universe came into existence from nothing by nothing— then we would have to think about the following:
1. Hoe does nothing produces rationality? How does nothing produce consciousness? Remember, in a naturalistic context, the universe was produced by mindless, nonconscious processes.
2. How does nothing create the very natural laws that allow scientists to make observations, etc? Remember, to offer a scientific explanation of anything one must always appeal to existing laws (or at very least plausible hypotheses). No laws, no science; it’s as simple as that.
3. How does nothing create the very natural laws which then go onto create a fine-tuned universe? Remember, natural laws (gravitation, magnetism, etc) do nothing and set nothing into motion. So when someone such as Richard Dawkins and other atheists appeal to “the blind forces of nature” as being able to explain all the observable complexity (such as anticipatory, irreducible and specified complexity), this makes no sense.
4. So after nothing creates the natural laws and then these natural laws create a fine-tuned universe, am I supposed to assume that these natural laws go onto create life from non-life, the genetic code, etc? As I said natural laws merely describe regularities in nature. Also, as Stephen Meyer points out, these laws don’t generate complex sequences, whether specified or otherwise. The laws describe highly regular, repetitive and periodic patterns. This is something that is empirically detectable- it is part of our inference to the best explanation.
Conclusion
When I look around the world, all our observation tells us that only Mind or intelligence is the only known condition that can remove the improbabilities against life’s emergence. In other words, “something produces something.” It is hard to see how a blind, naturalistic, undirected process can account for something coming from nothing. Theism has better explanatory power for many of the things we observe in reality.
Eric Chabot is a Ratio Christi chapter director and blogs at Ratio Christi-Ohio State University
Hi Eric:
I think you may be misguided about what physicists and cosmologists think about these topics.
When you say,
It makes me think that you’re saying the idea of the big bang is somehow in conflict with Quantum theory (the most accurate theory in physics). That is just bizarre to me. I’m guessing that you get your physics knowledge from apologetics books, like William Lane Craig’s “Reasonable Faith”. That would explain why you don’t seem to understand or know what actual physicists are saying or what certain theories are claiming.
Don’t get me wrong, Dr. Craig has more knowledge about physics then most laypeople, but I don’t think I want to learn science from a man who thinks that Quantum theory predicts that tigers should be popping into existence all the time. (Reasonable Faith, pp 111-113)
When you plagerized Craig in your first paragraph, it became clear to me that you were not interested in what physicists actually say or think about physics. Here’s what you wrote:
Here’s what Craig wrote:
You thought “origination” was “obligation”, but that’s not a big deal. But I really think you should credit Dr. Craig for that language in this and any further reproductions of this you might make.
Anyway, your actual argument fails to present any evidence for it. You do list 4 problems you have with a naturalistic beginning of the universe ex-nihilo, but really these are just appeals to incredulity. If one can’t imagine how it may have happened, that’s not really evidence for your position. All it says is that the explanation of the origin on the universe better account for all of these seemingly implausible occurrences to have happened. That’s a fair point, but it doesn’t make god a more likely explanation. It’s not necessarily one or the other.
The only sort of positive argument you make for thinking that god is a better explanation of the evidence is in your conclusion.
Your natural instincts and intuitions may indeed make it seem like it was all too improbable – a mind must have done it. It is truly hard to see, as you say, how natural laws could, blindly and without intention, work to create a universe. But luckily, we have people that study how that could have happened, and they spend a lot of time thinking about it and trying to solve these sort of problems. They’re called physicists. Let’s leave the physics to them.
An excellent rebuttle, Eric! Thank you for taking the time to write it and share.
Eric,
This may be a bit late to comment. I just noticed this on Greg’s blog. First, you say I plagiarized Craig. I actually did footnote him in my original post. So I am not sure why it is not on here. Anyway, by all means appeal to physicists. But physicists like Krauss all have presuppositions when they look at the data.
You say:
“It is truly hard to see, as you say, how natural laws could, blindly and without intention, work to create a universe. But luckily, we have people that study how that could have happened, and they spend a lot of time thinking about it and trying to solve these sort of problems. They’re called physicists. Let’s leave the physics to them.” You also say I appeals to incredulity. Really? Is this something atheists are trained to say?
You are right about my natural instincts and intuitions. That is because I understand the difference between mechanism and agency. So laws have causal power to create? Hmm. I thought the laws are descriptions of what already happens in nature.
You may want to look at Who Made God: Searching For A Theory Of Everything? by Edgar Andrews who has given us some things to ponder here:
1. It is important to understand that science can explain nothing except in terms of the laws of nature. Science works by first discovering (by observation) laws that describe the workings of nature and then using this knowledge to seek out further explanations — beginning with hypotheses and then confirming these hypotheses by various tests, the chief of which must always be repeatable experimental verification. To offer a scientific explanation of anything one must always appeal to existing laws (or at very least plausible hypotheses). No laws, no science; it’s as simple as that.
2. To explain the origin of the universe scientifically, therefore, requires an appeal to laws of nature (established or hypothesized) that pre-existed the universe. But laws of nature are nothing more than descriptions of the way nature operates. No one has ever proposed a law of nature that does not involve existing natural entities, whether they be matter, energy, space-time or mathematical systems. (Note that mathematics are arguably philosophical rather than scientific in character and are only scientifically relevant when applied to natural realities — that is, the world as it exists).
3. This creates a dilemma; the laws of nature cannot exist without nature itself existing but the origin of nature cannot be explained scientifically without pre-existing laws. The logical conclusion is that science cannot, by its very nature, explain the origin of the universe.
So fine, stick with the authorities. I like the physicist Paul Davies. Check him out as well. As he says:
“Science may explain the world, but we still have to explain science. The laws which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us” –Paul Davies, Superforce (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), 243
But I suppose Davies is no good. After all, he is not an ardent atheist. He is a deist of some sorts.
I suppose the next step is to say the laws of nature are just one of many sets of laws because there are lots of universes. Flew said:
“Some have said that the laws of nature are simply accidental results of the way the universe cooled after the big bang. But, as Rees has pointed out, even such accidents can be regarded as secondary manifestations of deeper laws governing the ensemble of universes. Again, even the evolution of the laws of nature and changes to the constants follow certain laws. ‘We’re still left with the question of how these “deeper” laws originated. No matter how far you push back the properties of the universe as somehow “emergent,” their very emergence has to follow certain prior laws.’1 So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.”
—Antony Flew (There is a God, pp. 121-122.)
But then again, what does Flew know? He was not a Physicist.