Episode Transcript
[00:00:04] Speaker A: ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: Did our universe come from nothing, as some physicists have proposed? Welcome to ID the Future. I'm your host, Andrew McDermott. Well, today's episode critiques the audacious claim that our universe popped into existence out of nothing. What is nothing? What isn't nothing? We'll unpack all that in due course.
This episode is actually built around a suggestion I recently received from an ID the Future listener. Timothy, tuning in from South Australia, emailed me recently. Here's what he I've heard over the years that the universe was somehow created from nothing. I recently learned about something called quantum vacuum, and from my quick scan online, it's supposedly capable of pulling energy from nothing, or from other locations or something.
Where did the theory that the universe was created from nothing originate from? How old is the idea? Why is the idea seem more acceptable to materialists, physicalists and atheists, scientists and philosophers compared to the idea that an intelligent designer was behind the creation of the universe? Why is the thought of an intelligent designer being responsible for the universe's creation seen as magical? And yet everything that exists, being created from nothing, is not seen in the same way?
Because to me it seems even more magical and mysterious, incomprehensible even, that nothing has any creative causal powers whatsoever to make anything at all. Whereas at least proposing an intelligent designer makes much more logical sense to me. As the saying goes, nothing comes from nothing, and from our observations, I don't think anyone has ever observed nothing being capable of causing anything to happen. And so, Timothy asks, when they say that nothing is responsible for the creation of the universe, do they literally mean nothing at all, or are they referring to something? If so, why do they say that nothing created the universe? Doesn't that phrasing mislead us to believe that nothing has creative powers? Well, Timothy, first of all, thanks for listening to ID the Future in South Australia. I actually lived in South Australia for a while as a young child. My sister is named after the town we lived in for a while in New South Wales, a little seaside town called Naruma. And thanks for your question. It's a good one, and one that a good number of our listeners will have pondered as well. Now, to answer it, I'm enlisting the help of my friend and colleague, Dr. Stephen Meyer. Unfortunately, he's not here with me today for a live interview. He's a busy man these days, though. I'm looking forward to having new conversations with him for the podcast in the near future. But Dr. Meyer has actually already responded to the Universe from Nothing claim, so I'm going to play a few clips for you today that will help unpack the details of this topic and provide some solid reasons for doubting the claim that the universe could have originated from nothing. As Meier has noted when discussing this topic, the universe from nothing claim may have been born out of something the famous physicist Stephen Hawking proposed in his 2010 book the Grand Design. Hawking claimed because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. Why the universe exists, why we exist. Now what's not stated in those words from Hawking, says Meyer, is that the nothing is not really nothing. It refers to laws that govern the universe. And if there's a law of gravity, that's not nothing. These laws are mathematical concepts, and where there's math, says Meyer, there's also mind. Now, Canadian American theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss was captured by the idea of the universe coming from nothing. So much so that he published a book in 2012 with the title A Universe from why There Is Something rather than Nothing. Krauss book popularized the ideas of another great thinker on the topic, the Russian theoretical physicist Alexander vilenkin. But as Dr. Meyer points out, even Vilenkin, another advocate of quantum cosmology, acknowledged that math exists in the realm of the mind, that the mathematical equations used to express those quantum physical laws are conceptual. So what these quantum cosmologists are ultimately arguing is that matter and energy emerge out of a conceptual realm of mathematical which necessarily implies a pre existing mind to think the mathematical ideas. Alright, first up, we have a series of short, punchy and very inspiring documentary videos that we've produced here at Discovery Institute called Science Uprising. If you haven't seen any of these, you're definitely in for a treat. You can find them@scienceuprising.com or our Discovery Science YouTube channel. Now I use this series when I'm teaching students about intelligent design. They're some of my favorite videos we've produced. They make great visual aids at the end of lessons to help encapsulate key points.
Well, one of the 10 episodes in the Science Uprising series deals with this very issue. It's episode seven called Big Something from Nothing, and in it you'll hear Dr. Meyer explaining how scientists discovered that the universe had a beginning, and how some cosmologists tried to get around that evidence by positing a variety of exotic models of how the universe began. The Universe from Nothing idea being One of them. You'll also hear Dr. Brian Miller, our physicist towards the end, talking about the fact that because the Big Bang was the point of origin for all matter and energy, something outside that matter and energy had to cause the universe to begin. Let's listen in now, and afterward I'll be back with Another clip from Dr. Meyer and some closing comments. This is signs uprising episode 7 Big Bang. Something from nothing.
[00:06:14] Speaker C: How does something come out of nothing?
[00:06:16] Speaker B: How do we have a universe that.
[00:06:18] Speaker C: Comes out of nothing? Astronomers believe there are 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe. Scientists are still trying to figure out how all of this arose seemingly out of nothing.
[00:06:32] Speaker A: Well, it turns out if you apply.
[00:06:33] Speaker D: Quantum mechanics to gravity, then in fact.
[00:06:37] Speaker A: Space itself becomes dynamical and universes, spaces.
[00:06:40] Speaker D: Themselves and time can pop into existence where there was none before.
[00:06:43] Speaker A: So you can create whole universes where there was no universe before. And indeed, in that way, you might imagine creating a universe from literally nothing. Whole universes from literally nothing.
[00:06:53] Speaker B: Out of existence.
[00:06:55] Speaker A: The whole universe is nothing.
[00:06:57] Speaker B: Nothing.
[00:06:58] Speaker A: Wait, our universe popped into existence from literally nothing. There is no cause for all of this.
So straight up, nothing, no matter, no creator, then poof. The universe.
That's actually the story some atheist scientists are peddling right now. Sounds pretty desperate to. Stephen Meyer, a philosopher of science and best selling author, explains how atheists got backed into this corner.
[00:07:27] Speaker C: It was generally assumed by most physicists prior to the 1920s and 30s that the universe was eternal and therefore self existent. That it had always been here and really didn't require an explanation. There was one physicist said an infinitely old universe would relieve us of the necessity of explaining the origin of the universe at any finite time in the past.
[00:07:51] Speaker A: But then the idea of an eternal universe was challenged by a pair of surprising discoveries. First, it became clear that almost all the galaxies in the universe are moving away from us. Then it got weirder. Two guys figured out that generally the farther a galaxy is from us, the faster it's moving away. One was a Belgian physicist and Catholic priest, Jean Lemetre. The second was American astronomer Edwin Hubble. Drawing on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, they then realized that space itself is expanding. Physicist Brian Miller explains why.
[00:08:28] Speaker D: Let me use an analogy. If you have a balloon and you imagine putting dots on that balloon to represent galaxies, and then that balloon inflates, what happens is all, all the dots move away from each other. And dots that are further apart will move away from each other even faster. And that's exactly the sort of evidence we see in our universe this Discovery.
[00:08:47] Speaker A: Suggests that if you reverse time like a movie running backward, then all the galaxies would draw back together to a single point, which led to a conclusion that some scientists didn't really want to face.
[00:08:58] Speaker C: The universe has been expanding from a finite beginning point where not only matter and energy, but time and space itself began.
[00:09:08] Speaker A: Today, scientists call this first moment of the universe the Big Bang.
[00:09:12] Speaker D: All started with a big Bang.
[00:09:16] Speaker A: The Big Bang theory means the universe is not eternal after all. It has a beginning. Even more radical, the Big Bang implies that the cause of the universe must be something non material.
[00:09:27] Speaker D: The Big Bang shows that all of time, matter, space, and energy started at a single moment in the past. Therefore, whatever started it has to be outside of time and space.
[00:09:40] Speaker C: You can't posit a materialistic explanation because there's no matter there before the beginning to do the causing.
[00:09:47] Speaker A: Many scientists initially resisted the Big Bang, including Einstein, whose theory partly inspired the idea.
[00:09:53] Speaker C: He really didn't want, at that point in his career to think about the beginning of the universe because he didn't want to think about what would be necessary to explain the origin of the universe. If we're talking about all of matter, all of energy, all of space and time.
[00:10:06] Speaker A: Einstein eventually accepted the Big Bang theory, But others went on searching for an option that would fit the data without requiring an actual beginning. One that grabbed a lot of attention was the oscillating universe model.
[00:10:18] Speaker C: The universe would be expanding outward, but then as the expansion slowed, the matter in the universe by gravitational force would cause the universe to re collapse. But once it re collapsed, then by some unknown mechanism, it would expand again. So you'd get a series of big crunches followed by big bounces. That theory ran into two big problems. The first was it was discovered that there was not enough matter in the universe universe to cause the universe to recollapse. And secondly, it was determined by thermodynamic analysis. The energy available to do work would diminish with each successive cycle. It'd be kind of like a ball bouncing to the ground. And finally it would damp out. Where there's no more bounces, who's gonna get it?
[00:11:06] Speaker A: They drop it.
[00:11:07] Speaker D: Oh, man.
[00:11:08] Speaker A: So the oscillating universe model was a big fail. And actually, all the attempts to evade a true cosmic beginning ran into serious problems. The evidence for the Big Bang kept piling on until most scientists accepted it. Some scientists, however, found themselves facing serious doubts, not about science, but about atheism. World renowned astronomer Robert Jastrow didn't believe in God, but he found it hard to get around what the Big Bang seemed to be telling him. So there is a beginning, there is a point in time from which it all started.
And that's a remarkable thing because it has a very strong theological flavor to it. And that intrigued me because I am an agnostic. And if there was a beginning, a moment of creation in the universe, then there was a creator. Of course, a lot of scientists still resist going where the science seems to be leading. Take physicist Stephen Hawking. Before his death, he proposed a new argument against the need for a cosmic creator. Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
[00:12:14] Speaker D: Now, when I first read that, I was staggered because it's self contradictory to start with. Because there is a law of gravity, because there is something, the universe can create itself from nothing. That's a flat contradiction. And then to say the universe can create itself, that's logical nonsense. If I say that X creates Y, roughly speaking, I'm saying if you've got X, you may in the end get Y. But if I say X creates X, then that simply proves to me that nonsense remains nonsense even if high powered scientists say it.
[00:12:53] Speaker A: Well, what about physicist Lawrence Krauss and his something from nothing idea? Imagine creating a universe from literally nothing.
[00:13:00] Speaker D: You keep using the horde.
[00:13:01] Speaker C: I do not think it means what.
[00:13:03] Speaker B: You think it means.
[00:13:04] Speaker D: Because how they get universe from nothing is by redefining nothing.
[00:13:10] Speaker A: Krauss's nothing is actually something, a set of laws and mathematical equations. That's the first problem Meyer explains.
[00:13:17] Speaker C: The second problem, Krauss's nothing, involves the equations of quantum physics. And equations are mathematical entities. And mathematical entities or abstract concepts always exist in minds. So his nothing seems to imply the need for a pre existing mind.
[00:13:34] Speaker A: A pre existing mind. Now what does that sound like?
[00:13:38] Speaker D: The Big Bang provides very, very strong evidence pointing to God because it shows that everything started all matter, time, space and energy at some point in the past. That means that something had to start it. And that something had to be immaterial, timeless, infinitely powerful, and even perfect.
[00:13:58] Speaker B: Personal.
[00:13:59] Speaker D: Because only a personal being can choose to act with purpose.
[00:14:03] Speaker A: But some people will embrace almost any absurdity to avoid the possibility of God.
[00:14:08] Speaker D: You say there are three different types of nothing.
[00:14:10] Speaker C: That's right.
[00:14:11] Speaker B: What are the three?
[00:14:12] Speaker D: I didn't know there was such a variety. A sampler, platter. You haven't been rubbing any of that baby shampoo on your head, have you?
With the THC in it? Well, I'm. No, you're clean.
[00:14:24] Speaker A: Leave me a hairstyle. Three kinds of nothing or three kinds of nonsense. If people can convince you that our entire existence comes from nothing, then it's just a short step to believe as a product of nothing, you are nothing. That all the things you see, touch, taste, smell, think and feel mean nothing because they came from nothing, were caused by nothing, and serve nothing. But if you and the universe were created by someone, a grand creative genius, the maker of matter, energy, space and time, then you were made for a reason. Your existence means something. You are here for a purpose for those willing to open their eyes. That's the amazing reality science is revealing. We are not materialists.
We see the human soul.
We experience love.
We live live with purpose. We fight for justice.
We are the quiet majority and we will be quiet no longer.
[00:15:37] Speaker B: Man, those Science Uprising videos are really well produced and very inspiring. The message is clear. We don't have to be afraid to take off our masks and show our face as we follow the evidence where it leads.
And if you haven't enjoyed the Science Uprising series, you can find them@scienceuprising.com as I said, or on our YouTube channel, YouTube.com discoveryscience and while you're there, hit the subscribe button because fresh videos are uploaded every week, including episodes of this very podcast that's YouTube.com discoveryscience now, before we close today, let's take a few minutes to hear Another clip from Dr. Meyer, this time addressing more specifically the Universe from Nothing claim. This was an interview done in conjunction with Science Uprising, part of a series of interviews with the experts featured in the series. Now, in this clip, Dr. Meyer is what do you think of Lawrence Krauss ideas as you'll hear him explain? The attempt to circumvent the cosmological argument for God's existence ends up reaffirming the need for a mind behind the universe. But Meyer also makes a second point in this clip that's very interesting about the amount of intelligently designed control that physicists exert on the very equations they use to describe their theory of the origin of the universe. Here's Dr. Meyer again.
[00:17:00] Speaker C: Lawrence Krauss claims that he can explain the universe from nothing on the basis of quantum physics, and that these models do not require any external control.
Oddly, what I've shown in my new book, Return of the God Hypothesis, is that Krauss's nothing involves the equations of quantum physics.
And insofar as equations are mathematical entities, and insofar as mathematical entities are abstract concepts, what we know about the existence of abstract concepts is that they always exist in minds. So his nothing seems to imply the need for a pre existing mind. But secondly, the mathematical expression called the universal wave function that he invokes to explain the origin of the universe. After all, he's popularizing the model of Alexander Vilenkin who uses a universal wave function to explain the origin of the universe.
That universal wave function is actually the consequence of the physicists solving a prior equation called the Wheeler DeWitt equation. And they can only solve that equation because it has an infinite number of solutions. If they exert control on the equation in the form of what are called boundary constraints, what they do is they limit the degrees of mathematical freedom associated with that equation to get a universal wave function out. That includes a universe like ours, but that is actually modeling a teleological indirected process. In other words, intelligent design.
How does the equation get constrained so that it can be solved to produce a wave function that will describe a universe like ours?
It gets solved by the physicist choosing specific constraints or controls or conditions to impose on the equation to get the outcome that the physicist wants. And so Krauss is exactly wrong.
The universe doesn't come from nothing in his model, it comes from math. But the math is only explanatory if prior math is constrained by the physicists to get the answer the physicist wants. And that I think is modeling the need for an input of information to constrain degrees of mathematical freedom by a mind. And therefore I think even if Krauss model and Vilenkin's model of the origin of the universe is correct, they're quantum cosmological models that what those models actually imply is the need for pre existing mind and pre existing inputs of information into a set of mathematical possibilities to constrain those possibilities to get the universe that they desire.
[00:19:41] Speaker B: That was Dr. Stephen Meyer responding to the Universe from Nothing proposal. And by the way, if you haven't read Meier's latest book yet, Return of the God, Three Scientific discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe, he goes into much more detail on the problems these models of quantum cosmology run into as they try to circumvent the evidence of fine tuning. So for more on this topic, definitely get yourself a copy of this book. Get it at ReturnOfTheGodHypothesis.com that's ReturnOfTheGodHypothesis dot com well, that's all I have for you today. My thanks again to Timothy in South Australia for suggesting the topic of this episode. And if you've got an idea for an episode or an interview, or you just want to drop me a line and tell me where you're listening from. I'd appreciate it. Email me at andrewd the future.com that's andrewdthefuture.com well, for ID the Future, I'm Andrew McDermott. Thanks for listening.
[00:20:43] Speaker A: Visit us at idthefuture.com and intelligentdesign.org this program is copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
