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 rebuttal of the views of Hugh Ross, a leading 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 thrust of Dr. Schick’s article is to discredit 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 argues that such a claim is nothing more than a scientifically updated variation of St. Thomas Aquinas’ “first cause without a cause” argument to prove the existence of God. As blasphemous as it may sound 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 that ‘God always was, always is, and always will be,’ then why can’t we say the same thing? 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 uncaused things, why not simply admit that the universe is uncaused and cut out the middleman? David Hume wondered the same thing…”.

The gist of Dr. Schick’s rebuttal of Dr. Ross’s 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 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 higher dimensional time, let alone the existence of a transcendental god.”

Dr. Schick is right. Therefore, my intention within this essay is to try to provide the justification that Dr. Ross’s argument lacks for assuming that the big bang (and therefore 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 I perceive such a renowned atheist to have proven, albeit unknowingly, the existence of God or, more precisely, a creator of at least some sort.

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 scheme of reality, 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 apparently created without a cause through vacuum fluctuations) that occurs at the confluence of four-dimensional points.

(For example: September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center on the precise floor and the instant the first plane crashed.)

Dr. Einstein himself was initially reluctant to accept such a view of reality, but eventually came to accept it. Here lies the most relevant point for the central idea of ​​this essay: within the reality scheme of the block universe, the past, present and future of space-time exist at the same time and there is no privileged moment within 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 misreading 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 he tries to comfort her by pointing out that she and her late husband were enjoying many happy moments 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 the 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 forever?

The only tenable answer I can discern is: he didn’t. That is, he did not do it in our space-time. Just as the evident orderly composition of a painting did not result from any event within the canvas, but from 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 the outside, by a creator of some kind.

The concept of cause and effect implies a sequential creation. If the universe is static (movement (and change) being a mere illusion -exactly as Parmenides and Zeno argued-, along the lines of a film representing 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 now static Rembrandt masterpiece could have created and ordered itself.

Rather, the reality we live in and perceive must have been created sequentially (which explains the obvious causes and effects we observe) in higher dimensional time, exactly as Dr. Ross argues, and then became static, exactly like a painting does. at the end Quite simply, 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 could somehow gain sentience and intelligence, and that their universe, contained within the book’s pages, seems as real to them as our universe (or “multiverse” if the MWI of quantum mechanics should be correct indeed) makes us (in our higher dimensional time). Unless the author was able to communicate with his creations, then by what means would they have to discover the true nature and origin of their existences other than by deducing that whatever logic and order they perceive must have been imposed from outside? as for them, the universe of his seems to have simply always existed 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 knowing it, simply “just is.” In this hypothetical scenario, they would be sorely mistaken; 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 regression of the 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 on their plane of existence, the answer to these questions can be found. understand scientifically, since it is not possible. to be here within the logic of our reality.

I do not claim that I can solve the last mystery I referred to. Rather, I am only saying that if Dr. Einstein’s theory is correct, as it certainly appears to be empirically, then it is evident that our space-time had a creator (existing or once existed), whose nature or who 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 summary, although my arguments could be transposed into a typical “intelligent design” thesis, I submit that my conclusion cannot simply be dismissed as such because my basic argument goes beyond the normal intuitive attitudes that proponents of intelligent design often present in support of of their points of view. . My basic point is derived from the prevailing paradigm in which contemporary physicists work: relativity and the blocky universe it implies.