Bible Students

Some Thoughts on “On Guard” by William Lane Craig (chapter 4)

This week’s chapter of On Guard was “Why Did the Universe Begin?” This chapter aims to answer the question why there was a beginning, not a continual regression of time into infinity past. In short, infinite regression is impossible. Some, like the Greeks, have argued that the universe infinitely emanated from God, and was therefore eternally existent. Monotheistic thought had been influenced by Greek thought in that area, so the monotheistic scene was at one point in the past plagued by a large disagreement on this question. However, for reasons explained later, the universe (or, to be more precise, time) does in fact have a definite beginning. 

As touched on in last week’s chapter, whatever begins to exist has a cause. If the universe began to exist, it must have a cause outside of itself (which, according to last week’s reflection, would be God). 

Something can not come from nothing. To discuss the topic of the beginning of the universe, one must touch on the study of metaphysics. There are two different popular meanings of “nothing.” The first definition, as used in this reflection, is the absence of anything. The other common definition is used by some popular-level scientists to mean a void with some properties, particles, or other “things,” but is generally regarded as a vacuum in space. I have seen equivocation of these terms in an apologetic setting. 

I use “nothing” to mean the absence of anything. There is not anything that can come from nothing. This “nothing” has no properties, and therefore can not be a causal agent. It has no ability to cause anything because it has no anything. If someone were to believe that this “nothing” had the capacity to be a causal agent in, say, the Big Bang, where the “nothing” caused the Big Bang, this would be intellectual suicide. 

I do not believe this issue has been made public enough on the popular level. I do not feel enough shame from advocates of the cause-less Big Bang argument. I personally feel there should be a small wince, at least, before attempting to explain to someone that you (atheist) believe an actual nothing acted as a causal agent and began the chain reaction of the Big Bang, resulting in where we are today. I feel the lack of this shame shows a lack of self-awareness of their worldview. 

Others will ask what God’s cause is, which almost seems like a legitimate question. However, if God did not begin to exist but was instead necessarily existent, then He would not (and does not) need a cause. The universe can not be necessarily existent because the universe has a beginning point. 

Why exactly can we be so sure the universe has an actual beginning point? Put simply, there can not be a concrete infinite. Abstract infinities are possible, but not concrete infinities. Additionally, potential infinites can concretely exist, for example the amount of divisions in a line. A line can be divided an infinite amount of times, but the divisions will become increasingly small. There will never be a time when one has reached an infinity of divisions. One can not count from one to infinity. In other words, segments can never add up into an infinity. Because time is a segment, time can never be added into infinity. The Hilgrath Hotel demonstrates this well, but takes much explanation. 

There are also scientific discoveries which confirm the philosophical reasoning of a universe with a set beginning. For example, the universe itself is expanding and shifting colors. When astronomers look at other galaxies and spatial objects, it appears they are all moving away. This is similar to a balloon blowing up, so that each point on the surface moves away from eachother, but translated from a warped 2-dimensional plane (in the case of the balloon) into a 3-dimensional plane (in the case of the expanding universe). This expanding causes light to shift color, which is observed by astronomers. 

An interesting point to be made is that the philosophical argument to the beginning of the universe is really an argument for the beginning of time. The universe can not exist without time orientation. Matter and time are intricately related so that one can not practically function without the other. This argument for the beginning of time is quite interesting, as it necessitates something with temporal causal ability while not being in essence inside time. This is probably the most important aspect of the cosmological argument, in my opinion. All of the discernable characteristics of God have something to do with His being outside of the universe, and specifically outside of time. 

There would be nothing prior to the initial space-time boundary. There must be an absolute beginning. Time was made with the universe, so there was no “before time” state. God did not operate before time, but rather time came into existence. Conceptually this is hard to understand, but God’s timelessness is difficult to understand for many reasons. 

Another reason for an absolute beginning of the universe is that if the universe was eternal, all events would have already occurred, including the dispersion of energy throughout. Why would humans be able to live now if the universe had always been around? If energy can become unusable, which it seems it can, then given an infinite amount of time all energy would eventually become unusable and would not permit life. This would only take a finite amount of time, so if the universe had been around forever, then this event would have already happened. 

The universe also can not be self-caused, as it could not act as a causal agent before it existed. Another quirk of the cosmological argument is that God Himself can function temporally, though He in essence is atemporal, and comes into time with the creation of time. Though He is not limited by it, He does have some sort of temporal orientation. Additionally, this “coming into time” and “functioning temporally” set the groundwork for God coming down as a man in the form of Jesus (and other forms throughout the biblical text). It is not too much of a stretch that God could function temporally if the existence of the universe necessitates His acting temporally for it to begin existing. This is because God, who is atemporal, created something temporal, which necessitates that He touches the sort of time dimension. Conceptually this may be hard to grasp, but this is to be expected. 

Overall, this week’s reading has helped to continue to develop the unique contribution to Christian philosophy that the cosmological argument presents. There are many quirks of God’s attributes which are difficult to understand but are necessary for the universe to exist at all. This sort of argumentation is unique to the cosmological argument, I have found, as the by far most solid argumentation for many of God’s qualities from natural revelation.