The singularity that preceded the Universe, its rapid expansion, and inflation into the Universe that we wonder upon today is not able to be observed,
and therefore these scientific theories are highly speculative to say the least. Even still science does offer us a story about where the Universe
came from and how it unfolded and developed over time, and it does so with an air of confidence unfitting to mortal creatures. Science makes the
argument that upon a framework of accepted laws and theorems derived from what we can observe, it is possible to extrapolate to that which can not be
directly observed, and as such it is possible to test hypothesis and reach conclusions.
I would challenge this premise on the grounds that it is impossible to extrapolate with any degree of certainty from what we know about the Universe
here and now, as if it is necessarily applicable to the Universe there and then. It would seem that esteemed theoretical astrophysicist, and world
renown expert on the matter, Professor Steven Hawking, is in agreement:
“At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have
been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after
the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in
the Big Bang.
...Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big
Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.” (Lecture by Professor
Steven Hawking, “The Beginning of Time”. Hawking, S.W., www.hawking.org.uk...
Without retracting the previous contention that there is really no way to conclude with any certainty what the Universe was like before, during, or
after the big bang, but allowing the possibility that science is more veritable than feared, and in acquiescence to greater minds, perhaps science is
onto some great truth about the origins of the Universe, and deserving, at least, of an open mind and fair consideration of the theory.
The prevailing cosmological theory that describes the unfolding of the Universe, where matter, stars, solar systems and galaxies come from is a story
about rapidly expanding super heated plasma that was distributed unevenly at the moment of spontaneity, which will refer to the moment when the
Universe began to expand.
In this scientific cosmology, just moments after spontaneity the Universe began to cool down as it expanded, which is when it believed the laws of
physics and the unfolding Universe reached some sort of stasis. This stasis is assumed to have disintegrated from a hypothetical unified state prior
to spontaneity which existed in the high energy vacuum called the singularity. Due to the equilibrium arrived at in the first few minutes of the
Universe by 'universal forces', quantum particles, matter and anti-matter, a proportional resolution of protons and electrons, the cosmological
constant, etc. it was possible for lighter elements like H and He to appear, and later for the first stars to forge in whose furnace the light
elements would be transmuted into heavier elements.
Within the framework of this theory it is also accepted that the timely and precise resolution of these cosmological quantum variables constitute
critical factors in what would later become a Universe hospitable to life. It is not unreasonable to wonder if the number of such critical factors are
as numerous as the quantum particles potentially bound up in the singularity. In light of the stark unlikelihood of this fortuitous coinciding of
variables critical to life, and the observation in hindsight that this Universe is hospitable to life, it seems a peculiar thing for a Universe
hospitable to life to burst forth in an instant without cause; that the unintending tumult of a lifeless singularity would, and in a spontaneous
moment, be ordered precisely such that this unpredictable and hostile universe gives birth to the nurturing environment necessary for life, such as
that on Earth, to be possible. This sows doubt to the premise of a strictly material and deterministic existence that permeates the scientific
worldview, or at least beckons the possibility, that the Universe was calibrated by some sort of infinitely intelligent, powerful, Creator
transcendent of the unfolding singularity. This possibility evokes a question that demands an honest answer. It is is a timeless question: Did God
In light of this awareness of the sheer unlikelihood of its occurrence, an awareness catalyzed by a open-minded examination of the facts derived from
the physical sciences, is there reason to believe that the Universe was brought forth by a transcendent Creator who designed and calibrated its
tumultuous forging precisely and efficaciously to bring forth life? Which is more likely given the facts: that the Universe is the result of intent
and efficacy, or that it is the circumstance of a cosmic coincidence, as unlikely as that coincidence is absent intent?
It seems that in order to trace the unfolding of the physical Universe, in our minds abstract imagination, according to the prevailing scientific
teaching, it is an inevitability to arrive at this question, and it is more then compelling, yet even still science refuses to assent to the
possibility that the Universe is created, or admit that it reeks of efficacious and intelligent design. On what grounds? Must we attempt to flesh out
some equation by which we can calculate the probability that all the requisite conditions for this Universe to exist should coincide? This would be a
futile endeavor no doubt, as it seems at first glance that its measure would be multiplied by an infinite degree of uncertainty, for objectivity
Much like the moments pervading that of spontaneity, the modus operandi for defending scientific claims breaks down here, and rather than appealing
to scientific data to justify their rationale, a new sort of counter argument is formed: the anthropic principle.
The anthropic principle is a principle that implies we either turn a blind eye and ignore the sheer improbability for the life giving Universe to
exist, without a Creator, to be so efficaciously ordered from even the first moment so as to not only produce an environment hospitable to life, as
unlikely as that would be in an impersonal, hostile, and otherwise meaningless Universe, but to produce complex life like human persons, of sufficient
complexity to intelligently and purposefully ponder the likelihood of it's meaning, or we assume the existence of a multi-verse consisting of every
possible Universe such that the probability that a Universe such as ours should exist approaches certainty. This second possibility infinitely
regresses into begging the question, for who then Created the efficacious multi-verse? In any case, it doesn't appear that the anthropic principle
addresses the contention that is in question which is the theoretical degree of unlikelihood that this Universe should exist, in the absence of an
intelligent and efficacious Creator.
edit on 17-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)