|NITAAI-Veda.nyf > Soul Science God Philosophy > Discover Your Self > How Universe Began > Universal Beginning|
Appendix 2 The Universe: How did it Begin?
Look up at the night sky, full of stars and planets. Where did it all come from? These days most scientists will answer that question with some version of the big bang theory. In the beginning (or before the beginning, if you will), you will hear, all matter in the universe was concentrated into a single point at an extremely high temperature, and then it exploded with tremendous force. From an expanding superheated cloud of sub-atomic particles, atoms gradually formed, then stars, galaxies, planets and finally life. This litany, having assumed the status of revealed truth, is elaborated in countless textbooks, paperbacks, slick science magazines, television serials complete with computer-generated effects. As an exciting, mind grabbing story it certainly works. And the big bang theory does seem to be based on factual observation, and the scientific method. It seems to so many people more reasonable than alternative anti-material accounts of creation. This big bang theory is, however, only the latest of a series of attempts to explain the universe in a mechanistic way, a way that sees the world - and man - solely as the products of matter working according to materialistic laws.
One of the greatest problems faced by the big bang theorists is that although they are attempting to explain the origin of the universe, the origin they propose is mathematically indescribable, and physically inadmissible. According to the standard big bang theories, the initial condition of the universe is a point of infinite density and temperature. Nothing can be said about it. All calculations go haywire. It is like trying to divide a number by zero. As of yet, the barrier of the dreaded singularity has not been surmounted even by the greatest exponents of the big bang theory. "Unfortunately," Steven Weinberg laments, "I cannot start the film at zero time and infinite temperature." So we find that the big bang theory does not predict the origin of the universe at all, because the initial singularity is by definition indescribable. Quite literally, therefore, the big bang theory is in trouble from the very start.
Thus Steven Hawking, Lucian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, and G.F.R. Ellis, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cape Town, aptly write in their book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, "It seems to be a good principle that the prediction of a singularity by a physical theory indicates that the theory has broken down." The actual point of creation, the singularity, is outside the scope of presently known laws ofphysics. Encyclopedia Britannica admits, "It should be emphasized that no theory of the origin of the solar system has as yet won general acceptance. All involve highly improbable assumptions. But the difficulty is in trying to find a theory with any degree of probability at all." Thus, with such "highly improbable" theories the atheists try to deny God as the origin and controller of the universe.Any explanation of the origins of the universe that begins with something physically indescribable is critically open to question. And further there is a gnawing question: where did the singularity come from? Here the scientists face the same difficulty as the religionists they taunt with the question, "Where did God come from?" And just as the religionists respond with the answer that God is the cause of all causes, the scientists are faced with the prospect of declaring a mathematically indescribable, physically unrealizable point of infinite density and temperature, of infinitesimal size, existing before all conceptions of time and space, as the cause of all causes. At this point, the hapless scientists stand convicted of the same unforgivable intellectual crime that they have accused the saints and mystics of committing - making physically unveriflable supernatural claims. If the scientist is to know anything at all about the origin of the universe, it would seem he would now have to consider the possibility of accepting methods of inquiry and experiment transcending the physical.