Where did the universe come from? Some cosmologists want to hypothesize that it sprang into existence from “nothing.” However, their “nothing” is something. Alexander Vilenkin believes that “something is in place beforehand – namely the laws of physics.” However, he admits:
- It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics come from. We don’t even know how to approach it (Steve Nadis, “Starting Point,” Discover [Sept. 2013]).
Perhaps Vilenkin doesn’t know how to “approach it” because he is starting with the wrong paradigm. Certainly, from a naturalistic, atheistic perspective, this question is a “great mystery.” However, this might be more than a mystery but a veritable impossibility:
- The laws of physics are elegant, universal, and immutable. Only a cause of equal or greater magnitude could explain their existence and uniform functioning. This consideration alone should eliminate naturalism.
- A natural explanation is impossible because the natural is not yet in existence to cause the natural laws. Nothing is in existence!
- Invoking any natural cause would also suffer from the problem of infinite regress – What causes the cause, and then, what causes the cause of the cause, ad infinitum! The only way to avoid this conundrum is to invoke the transcendent – an eternal Causer who doesn’t require a cause!
- It is also hard to understand how the unchanging laws of physics could arise from what is always changing. It is equally hard to envision how they can remain unchanging in our ever-expanding universe of molecules in motion.
The naturalistic paradigm clearly does not prove fruitful here. However, there is one other paradigm that does offer a cogent explanation:
- In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth!
Emerson de Oliveira says
Great site. I translate your posts into Portuguese at http://www.logosapologetica.com putting the credits (with link to this site).
Daniel Mann says
Thanks Emerson! We are honored!
Emerson de Oliveira says
I love this site. I put the credits to this site.
Emerson de Oliveira says
See this post into Portuguese: http://logosapologetica.com/teoria-unificadora/#axzz2jFs5xlW0
Daniel Mann says
Emerson, Thanks again. You are also welcome to take any of my essays from MannsWord.blogspot.com.
Emerson de Oliveira says
Great. Thanks, bro.
Emerson de Oliveira says
Logos Apologética means “Logos Apologetics” in English.
Joel Settecase says
Thanks for your thoughts. This was well-written, clear, and cogent. However, what about the idea that abstract objects (propositions such as “one plus one equals two” and numbers, etc.) would exist necessarily, with or without God or a natural world? I don’t subscribe to this, but Keith Yandell has made a nearly-convincing case for it. He was my Theism prof at TEDS. How would you respond to this?
Daniel Mann says
Joel, 1 + 1 = 2 falls into the same reality as do the laws of physics. How could nothing have such properties!
Daniel Mann says
Joel, This, of course also raises the question, “Is a number a concept that requires a mind?” Let me know what you think of this: