The Christian's Question: "Cosmic radiation confirms the Big Bang, and thus a cosmic beginning. What do you think caused that beginning?"
My answers to that are multifaceted. I am not a physicist, but I will include physicists' responses to such questions as part of mine.
Preface: It is important to note at the outset that even if I had no answer to this question at all, I could still show that the biblical story of creation in the Judeo-Christian tradition is not a true story, but one of many myths invented by ancient humans to explain what they did not know. Whatever caused / causes the universe, it was not/ is not the Christian god portrayed in the bible.
Answer 1: The universe may be eternal, self-existent. I am not certain that the Big Bang was the beginning of "everything." Maybe it was the beginning of the whole universe, or maybe it was the beginning of only this portion or manifestation of the universe. There is no need to pretend that physicists/ cosmologists have finished working on these questions. For example, consider this article, "No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning," posted at Phys.org on Feb 09, 2015, by Lisa Zyga: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html.
These are ongoing questions.
What is certain is: 1. It is far easier to suppose that the universe (the existence of which is not in question) always existed than it is to suppose that an intelligent creator always existed and that intelligence is fundamental. More below on this idea. 2. As I said above, all available evidence shows that the biblical story of creation is false.
Answer 2: If there was a cause, then we would ask: What caused the cause of the Big Bang? And what caused the cause of that cause? ... and so forth ad taedium.
Beneath it all, Nature simply is what it is.
Answer 3: As far as I know, in physicists' conceptions of the big bang, concepts of time and space break down at the singularity. In these theories, it is meaningless to say something existed "before" the singularity/universe and caused it.
Answer 4: By definition, no thing can be a preceding cause of a beginning of everything. A cause (typically conceived) precedes its effect; yet by definition, nothing can precede a beginning of everything.
Answer 5: Regarding the word "outside" sometimes used by believers:
(Hypothetically) IF the universe as a whole is caused, rather than fluctuating or eternally existent (the singularity either being timeless or having a potential unknown precedent or set of precedents), there is certainly no reason to imagine that some "thing" (? such as a "god") ... "outside" the "universe" ... caused the universe.
If there were some "thing" found to be "outside" the universe, we would need to revise our definition of "universe" to include that thing.
There is no such place as "outside" the universe; the word "universe" should be understood to be all-encompassing.
Occasionally, I have heard even decent, respectable sources use the phrase "outside space and time." But since the word "outside" is itself a spatial word, such phrases should be avoided due to the confusion created by their use. Here's an example of an otherwise decent source that still uses the phrase: "What Caused the Big Bang?" - (6:28) - http://youtu.be/uabNtlLfYyU .
Answer 6: No intelligent, deliberative, or personal cause should be proposed as the cause of the Big Bang:
IF anything caused the Big Bang, rather than it being an uncaused expression of nature, there is certainly no reason to imagine that it was an "intelligence" which somehow inexplicably existed "outside" the "universe" and poked or prodded or "spoke" or wished the universe into existence, by some mysterious unnatural mechanism or method. Such does not even make sense.
What kind of intelligence could exist without space, time, light, atoms, chemistry, carbon, biology, senses, stimuli, etc.? I have never heard a decent proposal.
A proposed intelligent, deliberative cause of the universe such as a 'personal' god would require the existence of something more complex than the universe itself, before the (consequentially mislabeled) "start" of that universe. So in addition to being mere idle and unfounded speculation, such a supposition would create further claims in need of their own explanations and proofs.
As far as anyone knows, intelligence and planning are properties and functions of physical systems and require interaction, multiplicity, time, and space. Since concepts of time and space break down at the singularity, so does any possibility of meaningful intelligence.
The singularity is a point of simplicity, not complexity of the 'intelligent' sort. Any proposal of intelligence at that point would be an unwarranted proposal of complexity surrounding or preceding the simplicity. There is no evidence for such.
All evidence points to the evolution of intelligence over time, biologically and now technologically, occurring relatively recently in the history of organisms.
That something highly evolved, like intelligence, ultimately could have jumpstarted evolution in a "beginning" is a far more improbable (and arguably nonsensical) concept than the confirmed evolution from simpler precedents, accompanied by increasing intelligence and complexity, which we actually see when we look at astronomical, chemical, biological, and historical evidence. The divinity proposal reverses what we actually observe evidentially, and it is grounded in false traditions passed down from more primitive cultures.
Theists often imagine a divine "uncaused cause." If one wishes to go the "uncaused cause" route, it is much simpler to posit a natural uncaused cause, since nature demonstrably exists, whereas the "supernatural" does not.
Answer 7: If the word "beginning" is to be used at all, the big bang, so far as I know, refers only to a relative "beginning," not to an ultimate "beginning." As far as I know, the potential within (not external to) the singularity was undefined, timeless, uncreated. As far as I know, there is no such thing as an ultimate beginning, only relative beginnings.
Answer 8: I will defer to the physicist Lawrence Krauss, since he has devoted his life and career to studying this topic.
When physicists discuss details surrounding the Big Bang, they often use words in a way that is unusual and causes misunderstandings.
Take, for example, the way Lawrence Krauss uses the word "nothing" in his lectures and publications.
"Lawrence Krauss: A Universe from Nothing," a video of Krauss's appearance on "The Agenda with Steve Paikin," TVO, Ontario Public Television, (26 minutes, 12 seconds), YouTube: http://youtu.be/46sKeycH3bE .
Here are some of Krauss's ideas from the video:
7:30 Definition of "Nothing" as a physical quantity.
"We've changed the notions. Well, actually, we've begun to define the notions."
"Empty space is actually quite complicated."
8:15. " 'Empty' space is actually a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence every second, so quickly you can't see them. In fact, if you try to measure them, they're not there, but they have an impact that we can actually calculate and predict. And in fact, it produces the best predictions in all of physics." ...
"That changes the ground rules. ... empty space is really complicated."
"Some people say, 'Well if there are virtual particles there, it's really not "nothing." ' ...
But there are no real particles. You try and measure things there, there's nothing. But those virtual particles can give space energy."
9:00. "Empty" space has energy.
9:25. "You might say, 'Well look, that's not nothing, because there's still space.' "
9:35. "Even space itself can pop into existence from nothing. Space and time can spontaneously pop into existence. ... Whole universes can pop into existence."
"The ones that can survive for a long time have zero total energy."
10:05. What about "The Laws (of physics)":
"It's quite reasonable to suspect that even the laws themselves came into existence when our universe came into existence. There could be many different universes, and in each one of them the laws of physics are different. They spontaneously arise when the universe arises. So you've got no laws, no space, no time, no particles, no radiation -- to me that's nothing."
12:40. "But everything we know about the universe, when you look out, tells us that there's no evidence of purpose." ...
"The universe behaves just like a universe that had no purpose. Now, to me a universe that behaves as if it has no purpose and one with no purpose are effectively the same thing."
21:00. "We have weighed the universe."
[Re: clusters of galaxies]
"We have weighed these systems and we've found that there's only 30% of the mass needed to make a flat universe. ... But then what we've discovered ... is that the universe actually is flat. And the rest of the 70% of the energy in the flat universe comes from the energy of nothing."
"What if there's energy where galaxies aren't? What is where galaxies aren't? Nothing."
- - - - -
When a physicist like Krauss says the universe can spring from nothing, he does not mean "nothing" the same way an average person might think of "nothing." And some argue that semantically perhaps he should not use the word 'nothing,' but qualify it, e.g. "nothing as-of-yet measurable in the same way that typical things are measurable."
And when he and other physicists refer to multiple possible "universes," he is not using the word universe to mean the ultimately all-encompassing, but the relatively all-encompassing.
- - - - -
Here is a short television episode featuring the ideas of famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking. This is from "Curiosity," Season 1, Episode 1, "Did God Create the Universe?" Stephen Hawking explains why his physics has no need for a god in order to explain the existence of the universe.
Curiosity - S01E01 Did God Create the Universe by bdtmz
You might also try reading Hawking's books:
A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking (1988, updated in later editions).
The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (2012).
I have read the former, but not the latter.
Are there lingering questions this does not address?
- - - - -
To any readers:
If you found this helpful, let me know.
If you find I have made any errors please let me know.
(bodhi7442 at hotmail dot com)
This essay was originally prompted by and posted on a Facebook Thread. Matthew J. Kruebbe. October 2014. I updated it 2015-02-28.