In the previous post (September 16th) titled A Broken World, our condition was left looking a bit dreary. Yes, we are indeed broken. The whole world is broken. But, where does that leave us? Are we to simply remain in a depressed mode, knowing we will forever be broken? To address this dilemma, we have to take a step back: way back.
Quite a few of my posts have been written assuming God exists. This is not a given for many of us, including me. We really must address the God issue and its role in the brokenness we live with. To do so, we have to start with the beginning of the cosmos.
What brought about the existence of the cosmos? This very question assumes a definitive beginning. Perhaps everything always has been in existence, cycling over and over, without the need for a beginning. Much of the scientific community works exhaustively at avoiding the issue of initial cause (IC). While some adopt a no beginning stance, others keep moving backwards in time to bigger and bigger natural phenomenon to explain events such as the Big Bang. Some simply avoid the debate over a beginning altogether. Why? There are natural outcomes of assuming a beginning to the cosmos that result in unwelcomed conclusions for those who believe in complexity without a reason for its existence.
In Douglas Hofstadter’s book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, he addresses this issue by focusing on the complexity of DNA, asking the fundamental question: how did all this get started? Did it start itself? That, of course, is unimaginable to Hofstadter. He concludes the discussion by diverting the focus to the wonder of complexity. He moves away from the dilemma, delaying a conclusive discussion on origins.[1] Diverting away from the difficult issue of initial cause is too frequent a trend.
Whether one believes in a beginning or no beginning to the cosmos, one fact is insurmountable: no scientific data exists that exemplifies an effect without a cause. This is evident from Newton’s laws of motion to DNA mutations to electron transfers. In a journal article published in Physical Review Letters, E. Marinari says, “There is no evidence for spontaneous changes in nature, only changes without known causes. The only remotely suggestive evidence is within the world of quantum mechanics . . . Even this is not understood well enough to state any proof of spontaneous changes in nature without a cause.”[2]
Still some theorists attribute all that is to spontaneity, asserting that the cosmos simply emerged out of “primeval chaos.”[3] Even if such an emergence did happen, where did the primeval chaos come from? Mathematical probability, let alone logic, does not lend support to a universe such as ours coming into existence of its own accord. Physicists estimate there are approximately 10100 atoms in the entire universe (that is a 1 with 100 zeros following it). The apparent order is so grand and the probability so miniscule that to espouse a universe out of chaos by chance casts a grim shadow on intellectual integrity.
The issue of existence pertains not only to atoms coming together in arrangements to bring about complexities such as stars, planets, and life, but also to the existence of atoms in the first place. Even the strings that physicists purport to make up all sub-sub-atomic particles have complexity. Where did their complexity originate? Once again one could claim that this complexity always existed (though that still leaves me intellectually unsatisfied), but spontaneously bringing higher order out of disorder is still very problematic.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is continuously moving in the direction of increased disorder. (Notice this is not a scientific theory, but a scientific law.) This increased disorder is commonly referred to as entropy. The whole universe is undergoing entropy: the whole universe.
Brian Greene, in his book The Fabric Of The Cosmos: Space, Time, And The Texture Of Reality, assures us that even though our universe is driven to more and more disorder, stars and planets and life can still form from pockets of order. However, a “more–than–compensating generation of disorder” still dictates the overall trend toward cosmic disorder.[4] While this may appease some theorists on a local level (our universe) it does not address the existence of cosmos, nor the remaining order within the cosmos that is moving in the direction of entropy. What brought the disintegrating order about in the first place?
Our whole universe speaks of causation. “All things are subject to the law of cause and effect. This great principle knows no exception.”[5] The scientific community has discovered no exceptions to this principle. The Dalai Lama states in The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, “Since we interact and change each other, we must assume that we are not independent . . . Effectively, the notion of intrinsic, independent existence is incompatible with causation.”[6] While this may be a reverse argument, it is nonetheless an argument for cause.
I assert, based on the second law of thermodynamics, that any and all complexity indicates a cause. No-cause equates to zero complexity and zero complexity equates to nothingness. Furthermore, as pointed out earlier, no scientific data exists demonstrating any effect without an associated cause. It truly is that simple.
Some get around the initial cause issue by asserting that the universe has no beginning. There are very elegant arguments for this. I am not opposed to such a theory. Though no beginning is very appealing, such a cyclical existence cannot continue without energy input. Why the need for a continuous energy supply? Any loss of electromagnetic radiation is both a loss of energy and mass. One could argue that energy never escapes, but energy must be spent in order to keep energy and mass in. Any loss of energy implies eventual total loss of energy and mass, which implies that our universe will not go on forever. If it does not go on forever, the implication is also that it has not gone on forever. “No beginning” theories do not do away with the need for continuous energy input. Cause is still a factor.
Part of the problem with such pursuits is that we are a part of the very system we attempt to analyze. “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And it is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve.”[7] While this is true, we can continue to explore and reason to the best of our ability, working diligently to move beyond our biases (be they scientific or religious) to gain deeper understandings of the nature of our existence. As an example, we have explored and come to understand so much about the human body in spite of the fact that we are confined to such bodies.
Hilary Lawson aptly says, “Science can give an account of the causes of events in the world by reference to other aspects of the world, but it cannot give an account of what caused the world to exist, for the cause would have to be outside of the world.”[8] Regardless of whether you are a millions-of-years evolutionist, a 6-day creationist, a nanosecond eventist, or an eternal cyclist, the common denominator is the inescapable issue of initial cause and/or continuous energy input. All scientific data points to a cause for every effect, and ultimately to an initial cause.
So, what does this have to do with a broken world? Everything! But, we must first analyze this initial cause in more detail. Stay tuned!
-Sam Augsburger
Slices of God: Strange, Dimensional, and Fractal Perspectives on God and the Cosmos
[1] Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, 548.
[2] E. Marinari, “Numerical Evidence for Spontaeously Broken Replica Symmetry in 3d Spin Glasses,” Physical Review Letters 76, no. 5 (1996).
[3] Boltzmann in Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (New York: Random House, Inc., 2004), 320.
[4] Ibid., 173.
[5] Carl Menger
[6] Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, 47.
[7] Max Planck in O’Murchu, Quantum Theology: Spiritual Implications of the New Physics, 85.
[8] Lawson, Closure: A Story of Everything, 231.
