This keeps coming up as if it’s valid and I can understand why. The explanation without god does sound like a cop-out. So maybe we need to address why it isn’t.
Let’s lay some groundwork with an example conversation re. God being the creator consistent with Big Bang Theory:
“@SoCalTheologian: It’s* not a hard concept, but seems to give #Atheists fits.”
*”..That #God is independent of the univ, & not subject 2 its rules”
“@MnemoniXs: An “uncaused first cause”? We have one: the universe.”
“@SoCalTheologian: Not true. The universe had a beginning and therefore a cause”
So here we have the crux of the matter.
The problem as they see it is obvious: Everything that starts must have something to start it.
This seems axiomatic and given normal physical laws is well observed.
They then posit that if the universe has a beginning then it logically follows that it has a cause, like everything else.
Fine and dandy so far.
But we can’t have infinite regress so some theologians go on to say that;
“If the universe has a cause of its existence, then [we find that] an uncaused, personal Creator of theuniverse exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”
-William Lane Craig
But let’s leave the unfounded leaps of presuppositional faith-based “reasoning” for now and focus on the first proposition and why it fails from a scientific point of view. Since that renders WLC’s argument redundant we don’t need to delve into the mad-house to put him in a crazy-bucket when he won’t accept a full rebuttal.
The scientific problem with the causal argument is that a cause requires time to happen in. If there’s no time then there’s no time for an instigation of events in any formal sense.
Big Bang Theory as it’s currently understood, utilising contemporary cosmology and quantum mechanics, leaves us with a universe where time itself is a product of the universe and the properties contingent upon the initial conditions.
The popular layman analogy is to say that;
because there was no time before the big bang, then asking what happened before the big bang is like asking “What’s south of the south pole?”.
A physicist should have no problem with this but a person who views the universe just as they see it, without an education in QM, would find it preposterous!
“How can there be no time?”
“What came before, if not time?”
“Why is there no God in your model of the universe?”
As I write I’m trying desperately to find a way of describing it in a way that can be understood but I guess at some point you have to either do the learning or stop arguing from ignorance.
The fact that in all probability it is impossible for us to know if there was another universe which “birthed” ours in a collapse or a different event, but what we do know indicates that whatever properties a hypothetical pre-universe had could not survive the process and would not resemble or impact on ours in any meaningful way.
If you want to shoe-horn god into that potential universe then be my guest, but it could not from that position have anything to do with us. It could not be personal, it wouldn’t necessarily be powerful or eternal or any other speculative manner of god-like being.