By: Justin Angelos | December 24, 2023
The Big Bang and Kalam
The widely accepted cosmological theory that explains the origins of the universe is known as the Big Bang.[1] This theory posits that the universe started as an infinitely dense, infinitely hot point and has been continuously expanding and cooling since the initial explosion. The theory is supported by numerous lines of evidence, including the cosmic microwave background radiation and the observed abundance of light elements. Therefore, it remains the prevailing scientific explanation for the origin and development of the universe. The universe began as a single point and then in a massive explosion expanded to the size the universe is now and is still expanding. Philosophically, one attempt to explain the Big Bang is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The basics of this argument are as follows:
Premise One: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
Premise Two: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[2]
No Big Bang?
Despite the Kalam Cosmological Argument’s support of the Big Bang theory, some think that the James Webb Telescope (JWT) has rendered such attempts futile. For example, physicist and science writer Eric Lerner concludes that the big bang never happened, since the JWT has discovered 280 galaxies that appear to be much older than ours. Further, the JWT has discovered galaxies that are larger and more developed than many of the Big Bang models allow. Considering these findings, does the JWT really call this argument into question? Has the Kalam Cosmological Argument been debunked?[3]
Challenging JWT
According to William Lane Craig, the JWT has not debunked the Big Bang theory. Craig observes that the strongest line of evidence for the Big Bang is the cosmic microwave background radiation.[4] There are different lines of evidence in support of the expanding universe from the Big Bang: 1) the red shift from the emanating from the distant galaxies, which was discovered in 1929 by Edwin Hubble; 2) low-grade microwave radiation background like the radiation in a household microwave.[5] The JWT images do not have any bearing on the well-established evidence of the distance/redshift relationship, which stems from meticulous observations of galaxies across the universe. Craig also argues that relying on the JWT’s observations as a basis for disproving the Big Bang is misguided, as the observations only serve to challenge current models of galactic evolution, rather than the theory of the Big Bang itself.[6]
While the JWT does provide valuable information in the study of cosmological origins, upon closer examination, these observations do not disprove the Big Bang theory. Accordingly, the Kalam Cosmological Argument remains a strong argument in favor of the universe having a beginning.
About the Author
Seattle native Justin Angelos brings a passion for evangelism and discipleship along with theology and apologetics. He has studied at Biola University and Liberty University. Justin focuses on providing help for those who suffer from emotional and anxiety issues. He currently resides in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Notes
[1] Kristen Erickson, “What Is the Big Bang?” NASA, March 17, 2021, https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/big-bang/en/, accessed December 20, 2023.
[2] Bruce Reichenbach, “Cosmological Argument,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/cosmological-argument/, accessed December 23, 2023.
[3] Vinod Karthik, “The Deal with Eric Lerner Saying the Big Bang Never Happened,” August 29, 2022, http://www.science.thewire.in/the-sciences/eric-lerner-big-bang-jswt/, accessed December 20, 2023.
[4] William Lane Craig, “Has the Webb Telescope Disproved the Big Bang?” http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/has-the-webb-telescope-disproved-the-big-bang, accessed December 20, 2023.
[5] Craig, “Has the Webb Telescope Disproved the Big Bang?”
[6] Ibid.
On the basis of so many conservative Trinitarian Christians complaining about God’s hiddenness and complaining of a seeming inability to reconcile their important doctrinal conflicts with each other (i.e., Calvinism v. Arminianism, Dispensationalism v. Covenant, Lordship Salvation v. Easy Grace, Catholic v. Protestant, Cessationist v. Pentecostal, Ontological Subordinationists v. Economic Subordinationists, Infant Baptism v. Adult Baptism, Full Bible Inerrancy v. Limited Bible Inerrancy, etc.,) I would argue that God’s existence is pointless because the persistence of these controversies from ancient days to the present paralyze the Christian from justifying their leaping from “God exists” over to “God wants you to know the truth”. That is, I would defeat the purpose of using the Big Bang to prove God’s existence, by showing that, even assuming God exists, God is nevertheless irrelevant to those who sincerely seek truth.
I would also argue that because the literal interpretation of Genesis 6:5-6 has more justification from the context than does the non-literal “anthropomorphism” interpretation that arises from nothing but a concern to maintain biblical inerrancy, God’s existence is also irrelevant because if he can regret his prior decision to create mankind, he then regrets a prior decision that he used to think was infinitely righteous. That is, God’s opinion that his prior acts were infinitely righteous, is not quite as permanently stable as “God cannot lie” might seem to imply. Thus one can only wonder whether in the last 2000 years other changes in the divine have taken place which we will never know about because the 66-book canon can never be added to…changes such as God regretting his prior act of giving the gospel through Jesus.
Because most Christian scholar deny full biblical inerrancy, the mere fact that the literal interpretation of Genesis 6:5-6 would “contradict” other biblical statements, does not foist the least bit of moral, spiritual or intellectual obligation on anybody to reject the interpretation and favor one that complies with biblical inerrancy. If the originally intended recipients could correctly understand Genesis 1-2 without needing to make sure their interpretation squared with the Psalms, the Prophets and the NT, we should be able to achieve reasonable interpretation without needing to square it with the Psalms, the Prophets or the NT. The vast majority of OT scholars agree that between Genesis and Malachi, the picture of God develops from more barbaric to more sophisticated.
And as long as there are millions of Young Earth Creationists who insist the Big Bang is both scientifically and biblically untenable, it can never be unreasonable for the skeptic to agree with them that the originally intended recipients of Genesis 1-2 would never have thought those phrases were describing stars and earth forming billions of years after a massive primal explosion. Until the day you deny that Young Earth Creationists are saved, your presumption that they are saved forces the conclusion that genuinely born again persons who have an active interest in God’s creative activity can sincerely perceive the Holy Spirit to be saying through scripture that the Big Bang is bust. If even spiritually alive people cannot agree on what God is saying in the bible, they are fools to expect spiritually dead people to think that pursuing “biblical” truth is anything better than an unachievable pipe dream. Thus there is likely no reasonable way to justify moving from “God exists” over to “you can find divine truth in the bible”. “Even if…” arguments are absolutely devastating when properly employed.
For these and numerous other reasons, the Big Bang does nothing to make atheists even start worrying “what if there really is a god?”