Does cosmology support the presence of God?

Numerous different religions affirm that a God must exist. What our current cosmology has to say about this will be investigated here. Let's research that. The cosmos was caused by something, but what was that something, according to the Kalam cosmological argument? That has got to be God.

The Kalam cosmological argument offers the case that God must exist and must have created the universe based on reason and the nature of the universe. However, for an argument to be regarded as compelling, all of the premises, presumptions, and processes must be true. Given what we currently understand, a creator-created Universe is plainly possible but not necessary.

We know that everything in the cosmos as we know it now came from a former state that was different from the present. There were no people on Earth billions of years ago since it took billions of years for our solar system and the components necessary for life to initially form. Earth's fundamental atoms and molecules likewise needed a cosmic beginning; they originated from the formation and destruction of stars, as well as from their remnants and constituent parts. The stars themselves had to form from the primordial atoms that remained after the Big Bang. We learn that everything that exists today or has ever existed in the past had a cause as we travel further into the cosmic past.

Can this logical structure be used to compare the Universe itself? Since the late 1970s, philosophers, religious authorities, and a few interdisciplinary scientists have asserted that we can. According to the so-called Kalam cosmological argument,

• whatever begins to exist has a cause,
• the Universe began to exist,
• and therefore the Universe has a cause for its existence. 

What therefore constitutes the Universe's beginning? The answer must be found in God. That is the primary tenet of the argument that modern cosmology supports the existence of God. But how do the underlying presumptions hold up to closer inspection? These have been established by science, but are there any other plausible theories? Not logic or theological doctrine, but rather our scientific grasp of the Universe itself, holds the key to the solution.

Is there a cause for everything that begins to exist or arises from nothingness?

It makes intuitive sense that something cannot come into existence from nothing when you think about it objectively. Since nothing can create something, the idea that something can do so is absurd; if it were true, the idea of cause and effect, which permeates every aspect of our everyday lives, would be completely destroyed. Ex nihilo, or creation out of nothing, runs against to our very notions of common sense.

Our daily experiences, however, do not include the entirety of the cosmos. Some of the most well-known examples of observable physical phenomena that appear to contradict conventional ideas of cause and consequence come from the quantum universe. As an easy example, let's take a look at a single radioactive atom. Calculating how long it would take for half of a large number of these atoms to decay is the definition of a half-life. To the queries of "When will this atom decay?" and "What will finally cause this atom to decay?" there is no cause-and-effect solution for any specific atom.

An identical result can be achieved by applying a cause to split an atom apart. For instance, if you fired a particle at the atomic nucleus in question, it might split apart and release energy. However, radioactive decay forces us to confront the following disturbing truth:

Naturally, in addition to doing so with one inciting cause, we can also create the same effect without any inciting component at all.

In other words, there is no known cause for the phenomenon of atom decay. There seems to be a random, acausal quality to the universe that renders some things truly unpredictable and unknowable. This type of randomness is actually present in many other quantum occurrences, including entangled spins, the rest masses of unstable particles, the position of a particle that has traveled through a double slit, and many others. According to numerous interpretations of quantum physics, foremost among them the Copenhagen Interpretation, causality is in fact a crucial element of nature rather than a fault.

You can argue—and some do—that there are alternative completely deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics that are equally capable of explaining the cosmos. All of the possible interpretations of quantum physics are equally valid because they are all observationally indistinguishable from one another. This is accurate, but it also doesn't provide a compelling argument.

Many additional events in the universe defy explanation by ideas like:

• virtual particles,
• fluctuations of (unmeasurable) quantum fields,
• and a measurement apparatus that compels an "interaction" to take place.

We anticipate that it must occur to explain Hawking radiation and black hole death. Deep inelastic scattering investigations, which look at the internal structure of protons, have shown evidence of this. When one asserts that "whatever begins to exist must have a cause," they are neglecting the innumerable cases from our quantum reality where to put it gently, such an assertion hasn't been well supported. While it is conceivable, it is not a given that this is the case.

Did the Universe begin to exist?

Surprisingly, this assertion is even less credible than the last one. It is extremely difficult to conclude that the Universe as we know it must have begun to exist at some time, despite the possibility that the odd and counterintuitive quantum world we witness is supported by some fundamentally deterministic, non-random, cause-and-effect reality.

But what about the Big Bang?

Right, they all say the same thing. Isn't it true that our universe began 13.8 billion years ago in a violent Big Bang?

Kind of. There is no doubt that the Universe began in a young, hot, uniform, dense, and rapidly expanding condition. True, we call that circumstance the hot Big Bang. However, it is inaccurate and has been known for more than 40 years that it is untrue that everything we know and experience, including space, time, energy, the laws of physics, and everything else, originated with the Big Bang. The Big Bang was not the beginning, but rather a different condition called cosmic inflation came before it.

A substantial body of evidence supports this, including the following:

• the variety of density defects the Universe exhibited at the time of the hot Big Bang, 
• the presence of overly and underly dense regions on super-horizon cosmic scales,
• the fact that the universe's earliest fluctuations were entirely adiabatical and lacked iso curvature,
• and the fact that the highest temperatures that could be reached in the early universe had a maximum that was much lower than the temperature at which the laws of physics became invalid.

At the time of cosmic inflation, the universe was still dominated by a powerful, positive energy that was woven into the very fabric of space, not yet by matter and radiation. For the duration of inflation, an expanding universe keeps its energy density constant rather than getting less dense. That means that rather than expanding, cooling, and slowing as it has been doing since the cosmos was expanding exponentially before the hot Big Bang: swiftly, relentlessly, and at a constant rate.

As a result, our understanding of how things began has significantly changed. A cosmos consisting of matter or radiation may return to a singularity, but an expanding spacetime cannot. It cannot even imply that a singularity won't happen. Remember that an exponential in mathematics denotes a doubling of something over a specific amount of time. Then it doubles again once the same amount of time has elapsed a second time, and so on endlessly.

When we reflect on the past, when what we had was just half of what it is today, the same logic can be applied. If you go back in time by another identical amount, it gets chopped in half once again. However, no matter how many times you divide your initial amount in half, you will never have zero. Inflation demonstrates to us that our universe can only get smaller during inflation, never reaching a size of zero or a point that can be regarded as the beginning.

This means that the Universe is incomplete in a way that is similar to past time, by General Relativity and theoretical physics.

Unfortunately, the cosmos only gives measurable and observable quantities for us to measure and witness. Despite all of its successes, cosmic inflation has one sad drawback: by its very nature, it wipes out whatever knowledge of the Universe existed before inflation. Not only that, but it also erases all previous instances of this knowledge that occurred before the searing Big Bang, which preceded and prepared the final incredibly brief moment just before inflation ceased. Both theoretically and physically, saying that "the Universe came to exist" is completely irrational.

It is true that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which was published about twenty years ago, proved that an expanding cosmos cannot have expanded indefinitely in the past. Nothing, however, mandates that the expanding Universe be preceded by a previous period of expansion (it's another way of describing incompleteness like in the past). This theorem has a variety of other defects, including when time is reversible when the law of gravitation is replaced by a specific set of quantum gravitational phenomena, and when the world is generated in an eternally expanding steady state.

As before, it is impossible to rule out, but it is also impossible to confirm, the notion of a "Universe that came into existence from non-existence".

Therefore, the Universe has a cause, and that cause is God?

It has now been conclusively proven that the first two premises of the Kalam cosmological argument are, at most, unproven. Even if we accept they are nonetheless accurate, does it demonstrate that God is the cause of the universe's existence? That position is only debatable if you define God as "something that brought the universe into being from a state of non-existence." Here are a few instances that show how absurd this is.

• Were we the ones who created the two-dimensional universe we created when simulating it on a computer? If so, are we the God(s) of that universe?
• If the inflationary state of the universe developed from an earlier state, is the earlier state the God of our universe?
• Is the random quantum fluctuation that brought about the hot Big Bang, which started the Universe as we know it, and the end of inflation identical to God?

There are probably some who would disagree that it is the all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-mighty being that we generally imagine when we talk of God. If the first two axioms are true, even though they have not been proven or established, then it is only feasible to say that the Universe has a cause, not that that cause is God.

The most important lesson, though, is that in any scientific activity, you cannot start with the conclusion you hope to arrive at and move backward from there. Any effort to learn is at odds with presuming the answer in advance. Your arguments need to be laid out in a form that enables them to be looked at, tested, and either proven true or wrong. You cannot, for example, make an unprovable claim and then claim that your use of deductive reasoning "proved" it to be true. Any conclusions drawn logically from an insufficient premise are false. Regardless of how the assumption is validated, this is true.

Even while it is paradoxical to believe that the cosmos does, at all levels, follow the intuitive rule of cause-and-effect, the idea of a fundamentally acausal, indeterminate, random universe is still open (and, arguably, preferable). Although it is conceivable that the cosmos had a beginning, this hasn't been confirmed beyond a logical scientific hypothesis in any way. And if both of those claims are true, the existence of the cosmos must have a cause, which may or may not be something we may attribute to God. But the possibility is not the same as the proof. Until we can definitively demonstrate several facts that have not yet been verified, the Kalam cosmological argument can only persuade people who already agree with its untested implications.

What do you guys think? Let me know. 

And if you have learned something share this with your friends and family.😊