We should begin by clarifying what science can really tell us
about a beginning of the universe and supernatural causation. Unlike
philosophy and metaphysics, science cannot deductively prove a creation or God.(Nor
can science disprove creation or God). This is because natural
science deals with the physical universe. But God is not an object within
the physical universe; so science cannot say anything about God.
Science
is an empirical and inductive discipline. As such, science
cannot be certain that it has considered all possible data.
It is essential to discuss the implications of a beginning (in
physics) for a creation of our universe. A beginning in physics implies a Creator.
Because a beginning in physics marks a point at which the universe came into
existence. In physics, time is something real, and it has real effects on other
physical phenomena. Thus, the point at which the universe comes into existence
is also the point at which physical time comes into existence.
In physics, nothing physical
could exist prior to the beginning point. If the physical universe did
not exist prior to the beginning, then it was literally nothing. You cannot
have more or less of nothing.
“From nothing, only nothing comes.”It certainly cannot
create anything. Our universe could not have created itself.
Something else would have had to have made the universe. “something else” would have to be completely
transcendent (completely independent of the universe and beyond it). This
transcendent creative force beyond our universe is generally termed
“a Creator.”
The Big Bang Theory was proposed originally by a Belgium
priest by the name of Fr. George Lemaitre who used
it to resolve a problem connected with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
Though Einstein did not at
first affirm the idea of an expanding universe, he later believed it
because of its overwhelming verification. Indeed, it is one of the most rigorously
established theories in physics today.
The contemporary Big Bang Theory holds that the big bang occurred
approximately 13.7 billion years ago.
There is no physical evidence for a period prior
to the big bang. However, some physicists believe that the big bang
was not the beginning of our universe which opens the possibility for a hypothetical pre-big-bang
period of indefinite length.
Space-time geometry proofs indicate a beginning of our universe or any
speculative multiverse in which our universe might be situated. These proofs
are so widely applicable that they establish a beginning of virtually every
hypothetical pre-big bang condition which can be connected to our universe.
They, therefore, indicate the probability of an absolute beginning of
physical reality which implies the probability of a Creator outside of our
universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated).
The 2003
Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (the BVG Theorem):
We made no assumptions
about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity
is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some
modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made
was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero
value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in
the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal
inflation without a beginning is impossible. (an average expansion
of less than zero would mean that at some point the universe did not exist =
would be nothing and nothing cannot regenerate itself or create anything)
The evidence from physics indicates the probability of a beginning
of our universe. In as much as a beginning indicates a point at which our
universe came into existence, and prior to that point, the universe was
nothing, then it is probable that the universe (and any hypothetical
multiverse in which it might be situated) was created by a transcendent power
outside of physical space and time.
Fine tuning: There are several conditions of our universe necessary for
the emergence of any complex life form. Many of these conditions
are so exceedingly improbable that it is not reasonable to expect that they
could have occurred by pure chance. For
this reason many physicists attribute their occurrence to supernatural design.
Some other physicists prefer to believe instead in trillions upon trillions
of “other universes” (which are unobserved and
likely unobservable).
The high improbability
of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe: (entropy=breakdown,
dissolution)(low=slow)
A low-entropy universe
is necessary for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms
(because a high entropy universe would be too run down to allow
for such development. Science has no clue as to how our universe managed to
have the incredibly low entropy it has. (One could say it is that way because
it has to be that way for us to talk about it. That is not an answer worthy of
a scientist who believes in the Scientific Method of observation and empirical
and inductive discipline).
Anthropic coincidences are the highly unlikely yet necessary set of conditions
for life as we know it on planet earth. These include the speed of light and
gravitational pull. They have unchangeable values and are called Constants.
If the constants varied from their values by an exceedingly small
fraction, then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse
or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would
have prevented the emergence and development of any life form.
Fred Hoyle and William Fowler discovered the exceedingly high
improbability of oxygen, carbon, helium and beryllium having the precise values
to allow for both carbon abundance and carbon bonding (necessary for life). This
“anthropic coincidence” was so striking that it caused Hoyle to abandon his
previous atheism and declare:
“A common sense
interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with
physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind
forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the
facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond
question.”
The odds against all of the anthropic coincidences
happening randomly is so exceedingly improbable that it is like
telling a monkey to type out the corpus of Shakespeare perfectly by random
tapping of the keys. (Who would believe someone who said they had a monkey who
accomplished that?)
Another weakness of the spontaneous
anthropic argument (it does not qualify as a scientific theory
because there is no real evidence for it) is that it seems the very antithesis
of Ockham’s
razor, according to which the most plausible of a possible set of
explanations is that which contains the simplest ideas and least number of
assumptions. To invoke an infinity of other universes just to explain one is
surely carrying excess baggage to cosmic extremes … It is hard to
see how such a purely theoretical construct can ever be used as an
explanation, in the scientific sense, of a feature of nature. Of course, one
might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an
infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.
When the evidence for a beginning (a Creator) is combined with the
exceedingly high improbability of the above anthropic coincidences, a super
intellect may be the most reasonable and responsible explanation because it
avoids all the problems of a hypothetical multiverse. It is both reasonable and responsible to
believe on the basis of physics, that there is a very powerful and intelligent
being that caused our universe to exist as a whole.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario