News

Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”

2 Comments

I’ve decided to explain why physicists believe that there was a creation event in this post. That is to say, I’ve decided to let famous cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin do it.

From Uncommon Descent.

Excerpt:

Did the cosmos have a beginning? The Big Bang theory seems to suggest it did, but in recent decades, cosmologists have concocted elaborate theories – for example, an eternally inflating universe or a cyclic universe – which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos. Now it appears that the universe really had a beginning after all, even if it wasn’t necessarily the Big Bang.

At a meeting of scientists – titled “State of the Universe” – convened last week at Cambridge University to honor Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston presented evidence that the universe is not eternal after all, leaving scientists at a loss to explain how the cosmos got started without a supernatural creator. The meeting was reported in New Scientist magazine (Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event, 11 January 2012).

[…]In his presentation, Professor Vilenkin discussed three theories which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos.

The three theories are chaotic inflationary model, the oscillating model and quantum gravity model. Regular readers will know that those have all been addressed in William Lane Craig’s peer-reviewed paper that evaluates alternatives to the standard Big Bang cosmology.

But let’s see what Vilenkin said.

More:

One popular theory is eternal inflation. Most readers will be familiar with the theory of inflation, which says that the universe increased in volume by a factor of at least 10^78 in its very early stages (from 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds), before settling into the slower rate of expansion that we see today. The theory of eternal inflation goes further, and holds that the universe is constantly giving birth to smaller “bubble” universes within an ever-expanding multiverse. Each bubble universe undergoes its own initial period of inflation. In some versions of the theory, the bubbles go both backwards and forwards in time, allowing the possibility of an infinite past. Trouble is, the value of one particular cosmic parameter rules out that possibility:

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn’t work (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301). “You can’t construct a space-time with this property,” says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past,” says Vilenkin. “There must be some kind of boundary.”

A second option explored by Vilenkin was that of a cyclic universe, where the universe goes through an infinite series of big bangs and crunches, with no specific beginning. It was even claimed that a cyclic universe could explain the low observed value of the cosmological constant. But as Vilenkin found, there’s a problem if you look at the disorder in the universe:

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists – nothing like the one we see around us.

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.

However, Vilenkin’s options were not exhausted yet. There was another possibility: that the universe had sprung from an eternal cosmic egg:

Vilenkin’s final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg. This finally “cracked” to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096). If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed – and therefore also after a finite amount of time.

“This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe,” Vilenkin concludes.

So at the end of the day, what is Vilenkin’s verdict?

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

This is consistent with the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, which I blogged about before, and which William Lane Craig leveraged to his advantage in his debate with Peter Millican.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) proof shows that every universe that expands must have a space-time boundary in the past. That means that no expanding universe, no matter what the model, can be eternal into the past. No one denies the expansion of space in our universe, and so we are left with a cosmic beginning. Even speculative alternative cosmologies do not escape the need for a beginning.

Conclusion

If the universe came into being out of nothing, which seems to be the case from science, then the universe has a cause. Things do not pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing. The cause of the universe must be transcendent and supernatural. It must be uncaused, because there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be eternal, because it created time. It must be non-physical, because it created space. There are only two possibilities for such a cause. It could be an abstract object or an agent. Abstract objects cannot cause effects. Therefore, the cause is an agent.

Now, let’s have a discussion about this science in our churches, and see if we can’t train Christians to engage with non-Christians about the evidence so that everyone accepts what science tells us about the origin of the universe.

News

William Lane Craig explains how Christianity answers evil and suffering

3 Comments

A lot of people in the West complain too much about any little suffering they have to experience. But sometimes, when a very harsh suffering is felt by someone who has tried to follow Jesus, an explanation is necessary. I found something very good on the Reasonable Faith web site, written by Dr. William Lane Craig.

He makes the following points:

  1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.
  2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil.
  3. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable.

I’ve written before about point #1, in which Dr. Craig’s describes the limitations of human knowledge that make it hard for us to know for certain that a specific evil or suffering does not have a good reason for God to allow it. And I’ve written about #3, in which Dr. Craig makes some arguments for God’s existence. But #2 might be new to some of you, so let’s look at that.

He makes four sub points in section 2 about Christian doctrines that make the existence of evil and suffering more reasonable.

  • 2. a)The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
  • 2. b) Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.
  • 2. c) The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life. 
  • 2. d) The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.

My favorite one is 2. a), so let’s look at that one. He says:

2. a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God. One reason that the problem of evil seems so puzzling is that we tend to think that if God exists, then His goal for human life is happiness in this world. God’s role is to provide comfortable environment for His human pets. But on the Christian view this is false. We are not God’s pets, and man’s end is not happiness in this world, but the knowledge of God, which will ultimately bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which maybe utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness in this world, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God. Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or those around him. Of course, whether God’s purpose is achieved through our suffering will depend on our response. Do we respond with anger and bitterness toward God, or do we turn to Him in faith for strength to endure?

You know, I always get confused when I see Christians trying to follow the script of the world and trying to make themselves feel good with consumer purchases, travel, fun experiences, showing off to others, etc. When I read the story of Jesus, it’s pretty clear that the normal Christian life, if the person is following Jesus at all, is about suffering the disapproval and opposition of non-Christians while you remain faithful and obedient to God. Today, there’s probably no better example of this than defending unborn children from adult selfishness. Although, defending born children from selfish adults who seek to deprive children of their biological mother and father is pretty bad, too. Nobody is going to like you for restricting their fun (i.e. – abortion, divorce, adultery, homosexuality, etc.), but being willing to take the heat from non-Christians for the sake of promoting what God thinks is right is true Christianity. It’s what Jesus would do.

Anyway, the one I’ve been thinking about more lately is 2. d), where Dr. Craig writes this:

2. d) The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good, the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God, no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain, can still say, “God is good to me,” simply by virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incomparable good.

I sometimes feel pretty stressed out about Americans who were born in conservative states, raised by two married Christian parents, attended Christian schools and youth groups, and then abandoned their faith for atheism as soon as they hit college. It really bothers me how people who had all these advantages turned their backs on God, and they’re ungrateful for all their blessings. They show no curiosity about God – they don’t want to know him. But when you read the gospels to see what Jesus has to say about these sorts of people, it’s very comforting. He really sees the problem, and he is on the side of the little guy who has to struggle to be faithful and obedient to God. The Bible has nothing to say to people who are able to feel happy and successful apart from God. It speaks to people who are struggling to follow God. Even when things are difficult, Jesus speaks to the problem of being an alien and a stranger in a world that turns its back on him.

News

How is “don’t judge” compassion working out in Denver, Colorado?

1 Comment

Whenever I think of the secular left, I think of people who are desperately trying to portray themselves to others as generous and compassionate, even as they pass the risks and costs of their actions off to the people they hate. That was on display when Martha’s Vineyard – a Democrat stronghold – immediately deported the illegal immigrants that Ron DeSantis bused over to them.

And that’s not unusual. Let’s take a look at a real sanctuary city, Denver, Colorado.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform lists them on their sanctuary cities page:

The City and County of Denver – the capital city of Colorado with a population of 727,000 – became an illegal alien sanctuary on the basis of an April 2014 Sheriff Department memo stating that Denver no longer honors immigration detainers. This was codified into law by a City Council ordinance from August 2017.

Also in 2017, the city stopped sending federal officials its daily booking sheets in order to limit immigration officials awareness of criminal alien activities.

And I found a story on it in the far-left Denver Post:

Denver’s new immigration measures aim to resist federal enforcement in several ways, but Denver Police Chief Robert White summarized them bluntly at a signing ceremony Thursday.

“We do not do the work of ICE,” he said, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in a comment that prompted wild applause inside Denver’s city hall from the immigrants, advocates and city officials who filled the room.

Minutes later, Mayor Michael Hancock sat down at a table and put his pen — actually 10 pens, in succession — to a new immigration ordinance, with City Council sponsors Paul López and Robin Kniech at his side. He then signed a companion executive order, which directs city agencies to coordinate on additional help for immigrants living in the country illegally and set up a donation-based legal defense fund for people facing deportation proceedings.

Wild applause! Wow! It sounds like all the people in Denver are really proud of their police and government. This is what they voted for, so they are sure to be thrilled with the results. Right?

Well… not so much.

Here’s an article from the New York Post, dated January 30, 2024:

Colorado’s capital has joined the evergrowing list of cities that have become overwhelmed by the influx of migrants — with over 38,000 asylum seekers arriving in Denver in the past year.

How could this happen? As long as the people enacting the policy are virtuous, then how could there ever be any bad consequences? THEIR SUPERIOR VIRTUE MAKES IT WORK OUT. Or does it?

Whenever you bring in a huge number of unskilled immigrants – many of whom don’t speak the language – you end up causing shortages of products and services. The most obvious shortages appear in housing, health care, education and policing.

The article notes:

Dr. Steven Federico, a pediatrician and chief of government and community affairs at Denver Health, told the outlet that hospitals like his have become a “safety net” for the city.

[…]Federico says hospital officials have begged state and federal officials for help covering $10 million in unpaid medical bills from migrants.

What do leftists do when the bill comes due for their “don’t judge” compassion? Why, they pass the bill to other people. People who never approved of their “don’t judge” compassion in the first place. People who warned them about the costs of their “don’t judge” compassion. The grown-ups always get the bill for the children.

Not just health care – education, too:

Denver Public Schools has seen an additional 3,000 students enter the system since July, putting a strain on their budget as funding gets set based on the district’s population the previous October, according to Adrienne Endres, who oversees multilingual education for the district.

Why is housing so expensive? Why is health care so expensive? Why is education so expensive? Why is policing so expensive? These things become expensive when you import millions of unskilled immigrants who use more in services than they pay in taxes.

Let’s look at an article from Denver local news channel KUSA 9NEWS.

It says:

No part of the City of Denver will be spared from proposed budget cuts to help pay for the migrant crisis. Every office, from the police department to the animal shelter, is being asked to cut money. It could even impact the funding our elections department gets this year.

In a critical 2024 election year, the Denver Clerk and Recorder’s Office says Mayor Mike Johnston has asked to cut nearly a million dollars from the department that oversees elections. The money, they say, is needed to help pay for the migrant crisis.

Down the street at the police department, Denver Police Department (DPD) says they’re working on finding places to cut their budget. So is the Department of Public Safety, and the animal shelter, and the health department. Every agency in Denver has been told to find ways to cut its budget for the same reason.

[…]Last Friday, Johnston announced publicly the first two cuts. $5 million from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and Denver Parks and Recreation.

The Denver District Attorney’s Office says they’ve been asked to cut their 2024 budget by 5%. The Department of General Services says they’re looking to cut 15%. Even the Department of Human Services, which is leading the efforts to help migrants, has already diverted $15 million from other projects towards the crisis and is looking for ways to cut more money.

Even the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, which is responsible for everything from trash pickup to potholes, may soon have to cut funding.

So, I hope voters can learn from the mistakes of Democrat sanctuary cities. Contrast the jubilant tone, when the city government was crowing about their “don’t judge” compassion, with their anguish now that the bill has come due. But do you think they have learned anything from it, now that they have to beg and plead for money from other taxpayers? Of course not. The virtue signaling is like crack cocaine to them. Once people give up on the objective morality of Christianity, they become obsessed with signaling their virtue to their neighbors, since that’s all morality is to them. Compliance with the expectations of their neighbors. And they can’t stop doing it, because that’s how they deal with the guilt from their own sins, and the consequences of those sins. Sadly, they rarely pay the costs of their virtue signaling. They pass the bill to you.