Arguing for the Existence of God
Here is the part one of step 1 of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.
1. Did the Universe have a beginning (or no beginning)?
A. The Big Bang theory Refutes the Eternal Universe
In 1916 Albert Einstein published his conclusions based on the constant velocity of light. The findings came to be called the theory of general relativity. One of the more significant findings was that the universe is expanding and decelerating, similar to the pieces of an exploding grenade. As the pieces of the grenade explode outward they collide with material (air molecules, buildings, furniture, etc.) that slows them down. This same principle works for the universe.
It was Hubble’s 1929 discovery that provided confirmation of the expanding universe. What this discovery did not describe was the expansion of material content into empty space of the universe. Instead we find rather is the expansion of the substance of space itself. As space itself progressively stretches outward the planets and galaxies move along with it much in the same way marks on a balloon move outward with the balloon as you blow it up. Thus as the universe expands outward it becomes less dense, just like the surface of the balloon thins as it expands outward. Today this is called the Big Bang Theory. All matter, energy, space, and time were created at the time of the explosion. The result of these findings was that the universe had a beginning and, according to science, was created out of nothing.
The big bang theory is what science currently accepts as the explanation for the beginning of the universe with very few dissenters. However, to avoid an explanation of an absolute beginning these dissenters have attempted to come up with alternate models. I will touch on two of these theories.
The first is one is called the Oscillating model and it was first introduced in 1965. This view tries to demonstrate that the gravitational force of the universe has enough power to eventually halt the expansion of the universe and then draw it back together into a single volume. Once it has achieved this single volume (or singularity) the imploding universe somehow bounces back and begins a new cycle of expansion. Big bangs expand and contract over and over again for an infinite period of time.
First, all current observations and calculations point in the opposite direction of ever halting the expansion and drawing the universe back together. Our universe is continuing to expand at a faster rate with no indications of stopping or slowing down. Secondly, even if the universe came back together, scientists have to come up with the power for the universe to rebound and begin expanding again. Even if they could in theory find the force to do it, according to the law of entropy over time the number of rebounds would continue to decrease to make a bounce happen. This would be similar to a rubber ball dropped from 6 feet will rebound less than 6 feet and each successive bounce more energy is lost until the ball stops bouncing. So due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics the oscillating model suffers from energy loss over time resulting in losing both rebound force plus limited number of rebounds possible. At this time there is no good reason to believe in the oscillating model for the creation of the universe; which is why it is rejected by most scientists.
A second theoretical model currently touted by some in the scientific community is the chaotic inflationary universe. Basically, universes create more universes. According to the theory today we have billions and billions of universes. New universes are continually being created. This is the type of theory that cannot be proven either true or false, since the theoretical evidence lies beyond our capabilities to detect, no supportive evidence is even possible.
One of the major obstacles to the chaotic inflationary universe theory is why is there life on earth? The answer they give is, if there are billions and billions of universes, it is likely at least one of them would have the right conditions to support life. This sort of thinking is problematic. Let’s say the odds of a planet attaining all the right conditions for life to occur was the same odds as flipping a coin heads a trillion times in a row. Some would think that if you had a billion chances to flip the coin that many times in a row, certainly it would happen. But the problem is that each time a tail comes up and you start all over again, the odds against accomplishing the task starts over also. If say the odds were a trillion to one against, each and every time a planet is created with no life, you start over and it is a trillion to one again.
My final point concerning both these theories is that neither one solves the problem of the beginning. Both the oscillating theory and the chaotic inflationary theory have to have a first universe to get the process going. They both still have to answer, where did that initial universe come from? To which they have no good answer.
So according the science, the Big Bang Theory gives evidence for the universe coming into existence. All space, time, matter, and energy had a beginning and are not eternal.