Week 5

Chapter 4 - Why Did the Universe Begin?

Class Date: Sept.17, 2025

Psalms 19:1 - The heavens declare the glory of God, and the expanse proclaims the works of his hands (CSB)

Reading Guide.png

Introduction

This chapter deals with one of the cosmological arguments, arguments that posit that the universe seems to have originated from nothing and this points to a being that is outside the universe as the agent responsible for creating it.

In the last chapter, we examined Leibniz's cosmological argument. In this chapter, we'll examine the kalam cosmological argument.

The chapter begins with a history of the development of the kalam cosmological argument, which was developed to counter the beliefs of the ancient Greeks who thought the universe did not have a beginning.

The kalam cosmological argument is the following:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. So the question that is addressed in this chapter is whether it is more probable that these premises are true or false.

Premise 1

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Three arguments for Premise 1:

Dr. Craig provides three reasons to support premise 1.

  1. "Something cannot come from nothing."
  2. "If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing."
  3. "Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1."

Who Created God?

Some atheists have misquoted premise 1 and have asked, "Who created God?" Premise 1 states, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause," not, "Everything has a cause." (This doesn't contradict the first premise of Leibniz's Cosmological Argument.[1]

Whether someone is misquoting premise 1 or simply asking, "Who or what created God?" here are ways to respond:

Premise 2

The universe began to exist.

In this section, Dr. Craig provides two philosophical and two scientific arguments for belief that the universe had a beginning.

Philosophical Arguments for Premise 2

First Philosophical Argument: An Actually Infinite Number of Things Cannot Exist

In this section, it discusses the difference between potential and actual infinity. The "story" of Hilbert's Hotel is also described in this section. This section gets a bit "heavy" so feel free to slow down as you read.

Second Philosophical Argument: You Can't Pass Through an Infinite Number of Elements One at a Time

In this section, it addresses the problem of infinity using the process of counting numbers to illustrate the problem.

Scientific Arguments for Premise 2

First Scientific Argument: The Expansion of the Universe

The "Big Bang"

In this section, Dr. Craig discusses the history of how the theory of the Big Bang was developed.

The Beginning of Time

Dr. Craig explains that if the universe is expanding, then one could argue that if we traced time backwards, we arrive at a point when space and time began and therefore is when the universe began.

For those who may be interested in learning more about a Christian perspective of the Big Bang, see Dr. Michael Strauss's book, The Creator Revealed: A Physicist Examines the Big Bang and the Bible by Michael G. Strauss

The Creator Revealed - Michael Strauss.png|200

Philosophical versus Scientific Arguments for Premise 2

As we’ve seen, there are both philosophical and scientific arguments for premise 2 - the universe began to exist.

Cosmologists today are divided on whether the Big Bang occurred and whether the universe began and therefore was created.

Sean Carroll, an atheist cosmologist and author[2], believes that the universe is eternal and that it exists without an external cause. Therefore, in his view, the notion stated in premise 1 that whatever begins to exist has a cause is irrelevant. Lawrence Krauss, another atheist cosmologist, believes that something can come from nothing, but "nothing" in his scientific usage involves underlying quantum fields and laws, not an absolute nothing. (For a video that refutes Lawrence Krauss on this point, go here - Refuting Lawrence Krauss-Something from Nothing - YouTube. In this video - The Problem With Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing - Dr. Gavin Ortlund, a Christian theologian and apologist, critiques Krauss' book, A Universe from Nothing.)

A Note about the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Dr. Douglas Groothuis, when referring to the kalam cosmological argument in his book, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, states, "One strength of this argument is that it may function somewhat independently of whatever cosmology may reign among scientists and philosophers at the time. This is because the kalam’s second premise (that the universe began to exist) is derived from the logical problems with the actual infinite, and not on the basis of any current physical cosmology. At present, however, the second premise of the kalam argument receives considerable support from big bang cosmology. But if the kalam argument is sound, it does not require any outside endorsement from empirical science. Another strength is that, unlike other cosmological arguments that are compatible with an eternal universe (which always depends on God), the kalam establishes the creation of the universe ex nihilo, which is a central biblical doctrine (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1) (p. 222, 1st edition, 2011)."

Is the Standard Model Correct?

Although the Big Bang theory is accepted by most cosmologists, not all of them accept it. For instance, as stated above, Sean Carroll believes the universe did not have a beginning but that it has always existed.

As stated above, even if the big bang model is later discovered to not be true according to scientists, one has to consider the philosophical problems with the notion of an eternal universe. The absurdity of an actual infinite, is explained in the section, "Counting to (and from) infinity." In this section, Dr. Craig points out the problem of counting up to infinity. Then, he also points, out the following - "But if you can’t count to infinity, how could you count down from infinity? This would be like trying to count down all the negative numbers, ending at zero: …, -3, -2, -1, 0. This seems crazy. For before you could count 0, you’d have to count -1, and before you could count -1, you’d have to count -2, and so on, back to infinity. Before any number could be counted an infinity of numbers will have to have been counted first. You just get driven back and back into the past, so that no number could ever be counted. But then the final domino could never fall if an infinite number of dominoes had to fall first. So today could never be reached. But obviously here we are! This shows that the series of past events must be finite and have a beginning."

This point is illustrated well in this dialogue between Dr. Frank Turek and a non-believer in which Dr. Turek uses the argument that Dr. Craig uses in the section, "Counting to (or from) Infinity."

Another thing to consider, according to Dr. J. Brian Huffling of Southern Evangelical Seminary, is that philosophical proofs for God are better than "scientific" proofs.

Second Scientific Argument: The Thermodynamics of the Universe

In this section, Dr. Craig explains how the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to the origin of the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that a closed system will "tend toward increasing disorder, or entropy, until it reaches equlibrium." The argument within this section is that in a "finite amount of time, the universe will reach equilibrium, then, given infinite past time time, it should by now already be in a state of equilibrium. But it's not."

--- # Questions about the Origin of the Universe

As a Christian, can I accept the theory of the Big Bang?

I'll let various apologists answer this question. See the videos below.

Dr. Frank Turek - The Big Bang vs. The Big Bang Theory #Shorts - YouTube

J. Warner Wallace, Author of Cold-Case Christianity

Was God the Cause of the Universe?

If the universe did have a cause, what can we know about that cause? Dr. Craig explains that we can infer a list of qualities that the cause must possess.

What must be the properties of the entity that caused the universe. "...By the very nature of the case, as the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time, and therefore must exist timelessly and non-spatially..." "This transcendent cause must therefore be immaterial and changeless, since anything that is timeless has to be changeless, and anything that is changeless has to be immaterial since material things are constantly changing, at least on the molecular and atomic level. Such a cause must be beginning-less and uncaused since there cannot be a infinite regress of causes. This entity must be unimaginably powerful since it created the universe without any material cause; it created the matter and energy itself. Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent first cause is plausibly personal."

Did the Universe Cause Itself?

Isn't It Unscientific to posit God at the beginning of the universe?

Dr. Craig makes it clear that God doesn’t appear anywhere in the premises of the Kalam cosmological argument. Rather, the idea of God follows from the conclusion.

In the video below, a student indicates that none of the physical big bang theories have physicists start by saying "God did it". "It cannot be scientific to include God did this or God before that, because it defies the principle of falsifiability, which is the cornerstone of our science. We cannot fill the gaps. How do you explain basically the technique of filling the gaps of what we know right now with simply 'God did it', when there is no way of testing it?"

Dr. Craig stated, "Notice, I am not proposing God as a sort of theoretical entity in a scientific theory, so you are quite right in saying that scientists don't include God as part of their cosmology. But neither am I; all I'm using the scientific evidence for is empirical support for that second premise, The universe began to exist, which is a religiously neutral statement that can be found in any textbook on astronomy and astrophysics. The theological implications only emerge in the context of a philosophical argument that isn't a scientific argument. This is an exercise in metaphysics, literally beyond physics. So I'm not using God of the gaps reasoning ; I'm not using God as a scientific entity. I'm not doing theistic science. I'm simply saying that the best current science we have makes premise 2 more plausible than not, and the religious significance of this only emerges in the context of this broader philosophical argument."

Why Can't the Universe Just Begin Without a Cause?

Could the Universe Come from Nothing?

Why Must the Cause of the Universe Transcend Time?

If Subatomic Particles Come into Being Uncaused, Why Not the Universe?

Reasons Why the Cause of the Universe Must Be Personal

Digging Deeper

The following is a list of resources to consider for further reading and is not necessarily an endorsement.

Videos

Books and Chapters

Footnotes

  1. The first premise of Leibniz's Cosmological Argument stated, "Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause." God is a necessary being and doesn't have an external cause. ↩︎

  2. Sean Carroll is author of these books about the origin of the universe: From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time (2010); The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (2016); and The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (2019). ↩︎