This is a question which I submitted to the Talk.Origins feedback section (click here), and which received the following answer.
Where does the natural sciences stand on the issue
of the origin of the entire universe at this point? It has been
argued by, among others, Bertrand Russell that the universe could
very well have existed for ever. I quote Russell in his "Why
I Am Not a Christian" (of course, his argument was a philosophical
one, but it entails the scientific issue I am wondering about):
I may say that when I was a young man and was debating
these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted
the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of
eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there
found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question
'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests
the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence
showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the
First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have
a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just
as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity
in that argument.
Is this view plausible, i.e., is it possible to posit
that the universe did not have a beginning, and how does this
view relate to the Big Bang theory?
Niclas B.
Response from Tim Thompson, author of On Creation
Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field:
I think there is some confusion here between natural
science and natural philosophy. Natural science concerns itself
with how the universe behaves, with reference to our innate ability
to observe and measure that behavior. Natural philosophy, on the
other hand, does concern itself with why the universe behaves
the way it does, instead of some other way. Natural philosophy,
therefore, may deal with concepts that do not involve observation
and measurement, with concepts that may remain unknown and unseen,
only contemplated.
First and foremost, big bang theory is nothing more
than an idea that provides a uniform framework for understanding
how the universe behaves. We observe systematic redshifts, and
then try to deduce what macroscopic behavior would produce that
observed result. The best idea, but not the only idea, is that
the universe is expanding from some as yet indescribable initial
state. It is that initial state, perhaps the mere fact of its
existence, that causes the problem.
Natural science cannot derive how or why that initial
state came to be, but can only infer that such a state once existed,
based on the most likely current behavior of the universe. I think,
therefore, that the natural sciences remain neutral on the question
asked, as a collection of disciplines, but as diverse in opinion
as any collection of people of various background and heritage
can be. Natural science is short on opinion, but natural scientists
are not.
Whether or not one desires that the universe be without
a beginning is a matter of philosophical/religious interpretation;
I would hazard to guess that the majority of those people who
do posit a universe with no beginning, do so in order to eliminate
the possible need for the idea of God being responsible for the
act of creation. The initial state of the big bang theory may
be a true beginning, or it may be only a step in a much longer,
maybe infinite process. I know of no scientific reason for choosing
one over the other, save that specific scenarios need to be compatible
with our observation and understanding of the current universe.
The back door that allows all of this to go on, is
that natural science cannot describe the initial state at all,
only what it looked like some finite time after the "bang"
occurred; that bang itself is the literal beginning of time for
a general relativistic theory. But general relativity is a classical
theory, and is not adequate by itself for describing what the
universe looked like in its earliest post-bang moments. This means
that, at least for the time being, we have no scientific tools
to describe the infant universe. So, it may still be scientifically
valid, for instance, to view the universe as an endless series
of expansions and contractions (pending sufficient mass to stop
the expansion by gravitation, or the intervention of some other
as yet unknown effect to produce the same result). Or, it may
still be scientifically valid to consider the universe to have
remained in its infant state for a very long time before the "bang"
occurred; maybe an infinite time. Or maybe infinite time does
not mean what we think, in a physical realm where time itself
becomes quantized. In any case, there are enough missing pieces
for just about any idea to survive until the tools for its examination
are available.
The bottom line, as far as I can tell, is yes, it
is possible to posit that the universe had no beginning, despite
the appearance of a beginning, as long as the scientific tools
remain unavailable for a detailed study of the infant universe
(a condition which may be semi-infinte anyway). I am not personally
a fan of that notion, I think the appearance of a beginning is
strong, and that the universe almost certainly had a unique beginning,
and will probably not have a unique end; it will expand forever.
But I do dispute the notion that the existence of a unique beginning
requires the concept of God.