Reasoning to a Cause of the Universe

Thus far, we have been looking at the developments made in mathematics, astrophysics, and cosmology that lead to the most accepted naturalistic cosmological model today, the Big Bang Theory. A model that posits the universe, space, time, and matter all came into being at some point in the finite past at a single point with infinite spacetime curvature corresponding to zero volume, the singularity. We also looked at how future discoveries, such as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) that destroyed the credibility of other models like the Steady-State and Oscillating models, leaving the Big Bang the prediction victor. One of the main characteristics of a theory that makes it a "scientific one" is that it offers predictions about what we should expect to see given the hypothesis. A testable theory means that we can observe nature and actually see if the model/theory is at most possible.

We also briefly went over other competing naturalistic hypotheses to the cause of the universe, such as Quantum Cosmology and String Theory, and how they just make the fine-tuning issue worse, and both have Theistic implications over naturalistic ones. Now that we have covered the many different hypotheses, we can begin to discuss, and with the help of PhD Philosopher of Science, Stephen C. Meyer, how we can reason to the best explanation, among the many differing ones offered. The models we have gone over are purely naturalistic. This means they aim to posit that only the things within nature, space, time, and matter/energy are the things responsible for the beginning of the universe.

 “From effects not proportionate to the cause, no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 2, Art. 3)

Naturalism is the view that there is nothing beyond the natural world, that matter and energy are from which all come, or the Prime Reality. The explanations for the events in nature, when reduced, stop at the fundamental laws of physics, and nothing more.

“The broader ontology typically associated with atheism is naturalism—there is only one world, the natural world, exhibiting patterns we call the ‘laws of nature,’ and which is discoverable by the methods of science and empirical investigation… There is no separate realm of the supernatural, spiritual, or divine; nor is there any cosmic teleology or transcendent purpose inherent in the nature of the universe or in human life” (Sean Carroll, The Big Picture, Pg 11, quoted in Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 219)

Within philosophy, there are three main branches: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics. Or in other words, what is real? How do I know what is real is true? And how can I apply this new truth to my life? Within Metaphysics, there is a sub-branch called ontology that is concerned with the nature of being. In this case, the nature of nature. It asks questions like what is the ultimate reality, or being from which all else comes? It also compares the existence of beings via their natures. Four main possible worldviews answer this question of an ultimate reality: Materialism, or Naturalism posits matter and energy as all that is; Pantheism, which claims an impersonal deity exists that is equal to the universe itself; Theism, which posits a personal, intelligent, and transcendent God who acts within the universe; and Deism, which posits a personal, transcendeent God who is not acting within the universe, other than causing it.

These four different worldviews encapsulate several belief systems and scientific models for the universe. By examining each worldview, we can test its expectations and see which one best explains what we see in the universe. They represent four different answers to the ontological question of what caused the universe. We can ask questions like, Does God exist? What would we expect if God did not exist? If God exists, is He personal or impersonal? If God is personal, is there evidence of Him acting within creation? Each worldview will answer each of these questions in unique ways according to the beliefs each system holds. For example, Materialsim says that God cannot exist, because nothing beyond space, time, and matter exists; it is a closed system. Pantheists would say God does exist, but he is impersonal and one with matter and energy. Theism holds that nature reflects an orderly system of cause and effect within an open system, one where God can act from the outside, one in which God may act as a causal agent (Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 221).

Abductive Reasoning

There are differing methods of reasoning, like starting from the pieces and working to the whole, or inductive reasoning. Or beginning from the whole, and working to the pieces, deductive reasoning. Historical scientists and historians use Inference to the Best Explanation when considering events that took place in the past. They use abductive reasoning to infer explanations of a past event based on clues left in the present. But inference to the best explanation is not just limited ot history, as it is used in forensic science, theoretical physics, astronomy, or any one person attempting to infer the cause of an unobserved event. In fact, we use inductive reasoning every day. Imagine you walk into a cabin in the woods during a hike with your friends. When you open the door, you see a table with a hot cup of tea sitting on it, and a wind-up toy moving across the floor. There are many possible explanations as to how the cup and toy got there, like natural forces, or people who were there long ago, but have since left. But these two explanations do not fit the situation as more evidence is added. The cup has tea in it, but it's hot, which implies it was heated up recently by someone. The wind-up toy is also still moving, and the energy from the spring inside it has not run out. This implies somebody was present to wind up the toy moments before the door was opened. It seems like the best explanation is not natural forces, or past visitors from long ago, but someone very recently, possibly still in the cabin!

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914)

You would have used inference to the best explanation, that somebody was there to make tea and wind up the toy. There were multiple competing hypotheses as to what caused the toy and cup, and only one of them offered the most explanatory power out of all of them. In other words, the idea that people are present in the cabin adequately explains much more evidence than natural forces do. Abductive reasoning was coined by a 19th-century logician, Charles Sanders Peirce. He described the different modes of inference that we all use to derive certain conclusions from facts and data, or to simply create a hypothesis.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning begins from the whole and works to the pieces. Stephen C. Meyer offers a good explanation of it,

Logic: If A is true, then C is a matter of course

Observation: A is given to be true

Conclusion: C must be true as well

If the premises are true, then the conclusions logically follow as well.

Abductive Reasoning

Abduction is different. Deduction offers certainty, but abduction only offers reasonable possibilities.

Logic: If A were true, then C would be a matter of course

Observation: C is observed

Conclusion: There is a reason to suspect A is true

There is no certainty produced, only possibility. Instead of "A, then C: C is given, therefore A." It is, "If A, then C: C is given, perhaps A. Abduction only produces possibility based on facts and data, not a certainty. This is why abduction fits this situation, as we have multiple competing metaphysical hypotheses (worldviews). We may find reasons that one hypothesis is more possible than another using this method. Peirce suggested that by comparing the explanatory power of competing hypotheses, we can strengthen abductive inferences and render one plausible beyond a reasonable doubt.

Epistemic Support

Ever since Peirce coined the term abduction, philosophers have refined how abductive inferences can offer epistemic support for specific hypotheses. Epistemology, the second branch of philosophy, deals with how we know something. Epistemic support is any evidence, axiom, or reason that offers justification for a belief. For example, I am diagnosed with Diabetes, and my doctor informs me that I must use insulin, or else I will die. I refuse to believe him and choose to eat Tums, because I think that is a better treatment. I have no justification for believing Tums treats Diabetes. My doctor, on the other hand, has a very valid reason to believe Insulin is necessary, because of his knowledge of how Diabetes works, and how the pancreas has shut down. My doctor has more justification for his belief than I do for mine.

Since abduction alone only offers weak support for just one hypothesis, as there are many possible others, scientists often compare their explanatory power to see which one can explain more evidence than any other given one. This method of comparing hypotheses is called Inference to the Best Explanation. Where the hypothesis with the best explanatory power is viewed as the most plausible. We have already used this method of reasoning in "Did the Universe Have a Beginning," where there were three competing hypotheses for the state of the universe: the Steady-State, Oscillating Universe, and the Big Bang. But as more evidence, facts, and data were compiled, like the CMBR, the Big Bang came out as the one with the most explanatory power and predictive success.

God and the Beginning

In this short part, we have only gone over the method of reasoning we will use to examine which worldview best explains the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe. By examining the predictions and expectations of multiple hypotheses for what caused the universe, or the state of it, we can observe which ones have the most explanatory power. By using abductive reasoning and inference to the best explanation, we can stack each worldview against the others to see which one is more reasonable, probable, or plausible beyond a reasonable doubt. In the next article, we will examine the many different hypothesis for the universe and try to see, with the help of Stephen C. Meyer, which one has the most explanatory power for the beginning and fine-tuning of our universe. We shall also see if Materialism, Theism, Pantheism, or Deism are reasonably probable explanations for the beginning of all space, time, and mass-energy. Anything is possible, but not everything is reasonably probable, as we will see.

May the creator of the universe, Jesus Christ, touch your heart and mind. Opening your eyes, as the scales fall off, to see the evidence that is all around us, evidence that points us towards His eternal power and glory. May the glory be to The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit forever, Amen.