This essay joins an article by Theodore Schick, Jr., Professor of Philosophy, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pennsylvania. The 1998 article is titled *”The ‘Big Bang’ Argument for the Existence of God”* and is a refutation of the views of Hugh Ross, a noted astronomer and Christian apologist, expressed in his book *The Creator and the cosmos*. . The article was originally published in *Philo, the Journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers*.

The impetus of Dr. Schick’s article is to debunk Dr. Ross’s claim that acceptance of the “big bang” theory as the beginning of the universe implies that it must have had a cause beyond the event itself, and the corollary of the Dr. Schick argued that such a claim is nothing more than a scientifically updated variation of St. Thomas Aquinas’ “uncaused first cause” argument to prove the existence of God. As blasphemous as it may seem coming from a Catholic like myself, I recognize that Thomas Aquinas’s reasoning leaves something to be desired in this case. I do not dispute Dr. Schick’s views on this point.

As a Catholic high school student, I once had the nerve to ask a priest in religion class, “If it’s enough to say ‘God always was, always is, and always will be,’ then why can’t we say the same? about the universe? (The priest’s response was less than memorable.) In his article, Dr. Schick echoes my youthful curiosity:

“But if we are willing to admit the existence of causeless things, why not simply admit that the universe is causeless and cut out the middleman? David Hume wondered the same thing…”

The crux of Dr. Schick’s rebuttal to Dr. Ross’ views is that Dr. Ross posits a higher dimensional time, a time in which the space-time we know and live in was created: the time of the creator. Since the Big Bang is considered to be the beginning of time, Dr. Ross argues, that implies that it must have had a cause, just like the beginning of everything else. Since the Big Bang is the beginning of our time, then its cause cannot have been within our time (because an effect must follow its cause); rather, it must have been within the higher dimensional time of the creator that Dr. Ross positions.

Dr. Schick rejects this argument as follows:

“This argument concludes that the universe has a beginning in time by assuming that the universe has a cause. But the big bang argument uses the premise that the universe has a beginning in time to reach the conclusion that the universe has a cause. So Ross is arguing in a circle. He is assuming that the universe has a cause to prove that the universe has a cause. Because Ross raises the question of whether the universe has a cause, fails to prove the existence of a higher dimensional time, much less the existence of a transcendental god.”

Dr. Schick is right. Therefore, my intention within this essay is to try to provide the missing justification for Dr. Ross’s argument for assuming that the big bang (and thus the universe) had a cause. For the benefit of my argument, I appeal to none other than perhaps the most revered self-proclaimed atheist in scientific history, Albert Einstein himself! It is an understatement to judge that it is ironic that he perceives that such a renowned atheist proved, albeit unknowingly, the existence of God or, more precisely, a creator of at least some kind.

It was Hermann Minkowski, Dr. Einstein’s former mathematics teacher, who first pointed out to him that his special theory of relativity implied a four-dimensional universe, now known as the “block universe.” In this reality scheme, time is reduced to a mere fourth dimension, with the result that the universe can no longer be seen as composed of space and time, but rather as a unified structure called “space-time”, with all events inside. the universe (including particles that are seemingly created without cause through vacuum fluctuations) that is produced at the confluence of four-dimensional points.

(For example: September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center on the right floor and the moment the first plane hit).

Dr. Einstein himself was at first reluctant to accept such a view of reality, but he eventually came to accept it. Herein lies the point most relevant to the thrust of this essay: within the blocky universe reality scheme, the past, present, and future of space-time all exist at the same time, and there is no privileged moment within the universe. space-time with the sole right to call itself “the present” or “the present”. “now.”

(Some try to argue that such a view is a misunderstanding of the theory. However, Dr. Einstein himself certainly seemed to accept its validity, as there is a letter written by him to the widow of a recently deceased associate in which tries to comfort her by pointing out that she and her late husband were enjoying many happy times together in other parts of the universe).

I think it is safe to say that we all accept the existence of the phenomenon of cause and effect. For every baby (effect) there was a transaction (cause) between a sperm and an egg. But here’s the rub: If past, present, and future exist at the same time, and if by definition a cause must precede its effect, then how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when the baby and their parents exist at the same time? and eternally?

The only sustainable answer I can discern is: he didn’t. I mean, he didn’t do it in our space-time. Just as the apparent orderly composition of a painting resulted not from any event within the canvas, but from the order imposed from without (i.e. by the artist), the undeniable order that pervades our reality and makes our very existence possible must also have been tax. from outside, by a creator of some kind.

The concept of cause and effect implies a sequential creation. If the universe is static (with movement (and change) being a mere illusion – exactly as Parmenides and Zeno argued – along the lines of a movie that represents the illusion of movement from a series of still frames), then nothing within our space-time more could have been created within it than a Rembrandt masterpiece, now static, could have created and ordered itself.

Rather, the reality we live in and perceive must have been created sequentially (which accounts for the obvious causes and effects we observe) in higher dimensional time, exactly as Dr. Ross argues, and then became static, exactly as does a painting. at the end Simply put, a cause must precede its effect into existence, which cannot be the case if both cause and effect have always existed simultaneously.

As a thought experiment, assume that the characters within a novel might somehow gain sentience and intelligence, and that their universe, contained within the pages of the book, appears to them as real as our universe (or “multiverse” if MWI of quantum mechanics should be correct in fact) makes us (in our higher dimensional time). Unless the author was able to communicate with his creations, then by what means would they discover the true nature and origin of their existence if not by deducing that whatever logic and order they perceive must have been imposed from without? As for them, his universe seems to have simply existed forever and therefore cannot have been created within his own time dimension?

The alternative would be for them to reason as Dr. Schick and many others do. That is to say, that their literary universe, without their knowledge, simply “simply is”. In this hypothetical scenario, they would be very wrong; as I believe Dr. Schick and others are for the reasons I have presented. Dynamic forces cannot exist within a stagnant universe. To argue otherwise would be a contradiction in terms. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the dynamic force that shaped our now static universe through causes and effects (ie the laws of physics) must have come from outside.

So how can the origin of the creator be explained? How can an infinite regress of creators be avoided? That is what I call the “ultimate mystery” of existence. How can anything exist at all? As incomprehensible as the mystery is, the only answer I can suggest is that somewhere along the line, someone or something “just is”, and in their plane of existence, the answer to these questions can be found. understand scientifically, since it is not possible. be here within the logic of our reality.

I do not pretend that I can solve the last mystery I referred to. Rather, I am only asserting that if Dr. Einstein’s theory is correct, as it certainly seems to be from an empirical point of view, then it is evident that our space-time had a creator (existing or once existed), whose nature or what is beyond the scope of this essay. Dr. Schick is certainly not arguing for one version of one creator over another. Rather, he argues against the existence of any creator, a view that this essay attempts to refute as scientifically illogical.

In short, although my arguments could be transposed into a typical “intelligent design” thesis, I contend that my conclusion cannot simply be dismissed as such because my basic argument goes beyond the normal intuitive attitudes that followers of intelligent design often present in support of it. of their points of view. . My basic point stems from the prevailing paradigm contemporary physicists work within: relativity and the blocky universe it implies.