The Beginning of the Universe

"He asserts that the universe came from 'nothing' rather than from God. However, the different 'nothings' that Krauss appeals to for his explanations are really 'some things'—'some things' that demand nothing less than the existence and involvement of the biblical God." ~ Dr. Hugh Ross, "Universe from Nothing?: A Critique of Lawrence Krauss' Book, Part 1"

Another set of Big Bang news articles have hit the popular media. This time with headlines like "The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say." This is similar to what Stephen Hawking wrote in his book The Grand Design, which I wrote about a while ago. The impetus behind such assertions is the desire to remove God from the equation when it comes to the origins of the universe. This has been a problem for naturalistic scientists ever since the first indications that the universe is expanding. So, let's talk about Big Bang cosmological theory and see if the above claims stand up within that framework.

Why is this such a big deal to Big Bang cosmologists? Well, it is often believed that "Big Bang" automatically means an atheistic world-view, but, while that may seem to be common now, that was not the original response to Big Bang cosmology. In fact, the Big Bang was originally seen by steady-state cosmologists as an inherently religious idea. Geoffrey Burbidge, for example, once lamented that his fellow scientists were running off to join the "First Church of Christ of the Big Bang." Sir Fred Hoyle first coined the phrase "Big Bang" in a 1949 BBC broadcast as a pejorative name because of its religious significance (though he did later recant). Why did they see it as religious? Because saying that the universe has a beginning means that it must have had a Beginner, and they did not want to admit the possibility of a Beginner.

Recently, however, many noted scientists have begun theorizing how the universe could have created itself from nothing. That is, of course, the holy grail of a naturalistic world-view--if you can show that the universe did not need a Beginner, then God is not necessary (at least, that is the assumption). So, we get articles like the one list above and books like Hawking's The Grand Design. As I have already written about Hawking's work, I will make a few comments about the recent articles.

The basic premise of such arguments is that "the Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes." What I find most interesting about this is that the scientist quoted (Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley) admits that the laws of physics cannot explain themselves. He even admits that they would require a divine Creator, though he goes on to ask who created the divine Creator, which he believes leads to a never-ending chain of causes. But does it really? Basically, Filippenko is showing the validity and necessity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is a classic argument for an uncaused Cause or a Creator. Eventually the chain of causality throughout the history of being has to have a beginning. String Theory posits a type of multiverse to explain the beginning of our universe. Filippenko and Hawking posit that the laws of physics cause the universe to create itself. Both of these simply push the need for a Creator back a step. They simply add another link to the chain of causality. Where did the multiverse come from? Where did the laws of physics come from? Believing they are simply "brute realities" takes as much faith as, if not more than it takes to believe in a Creator (I have written about this here, here, here, and here). Such theories do not solve the problem but are basically mathematical ways of skirting the question.

Furthermore, Filippenko positing quantum fluctuations as a creative event has problems. (Warning, this is going to get a little bit technical.) A consequence of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is that quantum fluctuations in the fabric of space-time will generate particles out of "nothing" (it is not really nothing as we will soon see). Seth Shostack from SETI asserts, "Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos." In the article, Filippenko draws on this idea and says, "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it." The first problem with this, that is not mentioned in the articles, is that while the uncertainty principle allows for the random creation of particles, it also requires that these particles revert back to fluctuations before they can be observed. They will not stick around long enough to create anything, about a quintillionth of a second (that is 0.000000000000000001 seconds)! The second problem is even larger than the first. The article and the scientists call this creation from nothing but it is in no way creation from nothing. It is creation from other "some things" (as the quote from Dr. Hugh Ross above states). When he says, "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way..." Filippenko reveals a major problem in his theory: quantum fluctuations require space-time (which is something, not nothing) to already exist for any type of particles (or universes) to be created. Rather than coming from nothing, they come from pre-existent physical laws and pre-existent space-time. Space-time must already exist for quantum fluctuations to create anything. So, one must again ask, "Has the need for a divine Creator really been removed from the situation?" Not hardly. If the fabric of space-time is necessary for quantum fluctuations to create anything, then space-time first had to be created by something or Someone else. Again, this pushes the need for a Creator back a step but in no way rids us of that need.

For more on this topic, I would suggest you read Dr. Hugh Ross' review of Lawrence M. Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing. Krauss' book is a much more highly developed argument than the article I have been citing or even Hawking's book. Dr. Hugh Ross does a very good job of laying out the issues with it in part 1 and the theological explanations in part 2.

By His Grace,
Taylor

How to Find a Wife (Biblically)

"We have to realize that the Bible does not speak to every issue we will face in life. Just ask Solomon, who had to use wisdom when the two prostitutes came to him claiming to both be the mother of one child. We must follow those things that God has given us. In all of our relationships we have the obligation to exercise the fruit of the Spirit and not mistreat anyone, that is especially true for a prospective spouse." ~ Rev. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California and Associate Pastor at Oceanside United Reformed Church

This quote is from a great "tongue-in-cheek" article about how we Christians sometimes try to say we have the "biblical" way of dating, courting, or whatever you call the way(s) of looking for a spouse. After his satirical list, Rev. Clark gives some great reflection on what the Bible actually does say about this issue. It is short and worth reading.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Charge of Inconsistency

"Simply stated, the 'homosexuality and shellfish' argument falls apart when read as the Scriptures are meant to be read—with a redemptive-historical approach in view." ~ Matthew Everhard

You often hear stated today, "Christians love to quote the Bible and pick and choose whatever rules they want us to obey and what rules they want to ignore. I can quote the Bible too, and Lv. 11:9-11 says that you should not eat shellfish. You eat shrimp, so why should we believe what you say about homosexuality?" This is the "shrimp argument" and it sounds like a good one on the surface, but it actually comes from a complete lack of understanding of Scripture and Christianity as a whole. It is leveled by those who want to charge Christians with inconsistency if they do not agree with homosexuality. Yet, as we will see, citing a random verse from Scripture does not prove Christians inconsistent at all. It in fact opens up the door to show how Christ has changed everything.

First of all, let's be clear about what the Bible says. People who use the shrimp argument generally quote from Lv. 18:22 or Lv. 20:13 as if they are the only thing the Bible has to say about homosexuality. That is simply not the case. The New Testament (NT) is not silent on the issue but is quite clear (cf. Ro. 1:26-27; 1 Co. 6:9; 1 Ti. 1:8-11). So, if we are going to throw around the charge of "picking and choosing," let's not pick and choose what prohibitions we mention or what Testament we go to for those prohibitions. (It is often argued that Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. Stand to Reason has a good article answering that charge.)

So, is it inconsistent for Christians say homosexuality is sinful but eat shrimp? No, because with His life, death, and resurrection, Jesus changed the Biblical landscape and now proper interpretation of the Old Testament (OT) law must take Christ's work into account (the redemptive-historical view mentioned in the quote by Everhard).

The OT, especially Leviticus, commits a large amount of space to what is called the "ceremonial law." This law told Israel how it could approach and worship God. Because Christ had not yet come, man could not just approach God in his any state. For God's people to be in right relationship to a holy God and to rightly worship that God, there had to be sacrifices to deal with sin and rules to deal with the purity of the Israelite people. You could not approach God if you had eaten certain foods that were declared unclean (like shrimp), if you had touched an unclean object, or if you did not wear the right clothing. Through the ceremonial law, God made it clear that He is holy and people are not, therefore they cannot just approach Him and worship Him in whatever fashion they pleased. They had to be pure. When Jesus came on the scene, however, He fulfilled the ceremonial law. The book of Hebrews argues this point at length, showing that with Christ's death and resurrection approaching God has changed and people cannot go back to the ceremonial law. Christ's is one-for-all sacrifice (He. 10:12), His righteousness is now our purity before God (Ro. 5:12-18; He. 10:19-23), and now all foods are clean (Mk. 7:19). When Jesus died on the cross the veil of the Temple was ripped and replaced with Jesus Himself (He. 10:20), which shows that the ceremonial law, with its sacrifices and cleanliness laws, has been fulfilled and can no longer be observed by Christians. Jesus makes us clean now, not what we eat, wear, touch, or what sacrifices we make.

That, however, is not the only type of law in the OT. Another type is the "judicial law" that governed the nation of Israel. In it there are a lot of laws that seem odd to us and there are some that seem extreme, like the stoning of blasphemers (cf. Lv. 24:16). What about those laws? How do those work? Blaspheming is obviously still a sin but should we stone those who do it? No, because with the coming of Christ, God's people are not longer a physical nation but a spiritual one. In the OT, God's people were a physical nation so sins had civil punishments. However, now that Christ has come, God's people are a spiritual people living in governments throughout the world. The Church is not the civil government, so the Church no longer deals with sin through civil punishments but through exhortation, censoring, and, as a last resort, exclusion from fellowship (cf. Mt. 18:15-20; 1 Co. 5; 1 Ti. 1:19-20).

But, the third type of law--the moral law, which, for example, tells us about sexuality--is still in place. Why? Because it is not a consequence of how we can approach/worship God (ceremonial law) or the political organization of God's people (judicial law) but an extension of God's very character and created order, which can never change or be done away with. Even the coming of Christ does not change the requirements of the moral law (but He does secure forgiveness and eternal life for those who put their faith in Him). What the OT has to say about generosity, loving our neighbor, families, relationships, and even sex continues into the NT (cf. e.g. Mt. 5:27-30; 1 Co. 6:9-20).

So, how we look at the OT and its regulations depends not on "picking and choosing" but on Jesus Christ Himself. Now, one might reject the Christian premise that Jesus is God and that His death and resurrection changed the biblical landscape. But, even if one does reject that premise, one cannot fairly say that Christians are inconsistent if they accept the moral statements of the OT and do not practice the ceremonial or judicial aspects. From the premises of Christianity this is completely consistent. One can say they disagree, one can reject the conclusion, one can say Christianity is wrong, and one can even say it is "hateful" (those are different arguments), but the charge of inconsistency fails when looked at the data seriously from a biblical, Christian standpoint.

By His Grace,
Taylor