Dealing with Some Further Objections

The video Proof of God in 3 Minutes states that “there really is no serious scientific argument against” (2:27) the conclusion that a violation of the conservation of energy at the beginning of the universe requires a “supernatural starting cause” (1:19). Note the important qualification “serious.” Of course, the video is not claiming that there are no arguments whatever against its position. It’s claiming that the arguments that do exist aren’t readily persuasive. The video deals with a few of the central objections, and the main article that accompanies the video deals with more. Here we dig even deeper into other issues related to the argument.

What Do Materialistic Models of the Universe Typically Mean By “Nothing”?

The video states that “we have never seen matter come from nothing” (2:18) and critiques the idea that virtual particles can “pop out of nothing” (1:54). When the video speaks of “nothing,” it means absolute nothing — i.e., not only no matter or no energy, but also no space-time fabric of the universe, no quantum fields, and no physical laws. In other words, the video’s usage of “nothing” means what the word “nothing” normally means to most people: absolute nothing, including the complete absence of anything that could serve as a precursor providing scaffolding for our universe. However, when cosmologists and quantum physicists speak of “nothing,” they usually mean something very different: a quantum vacuum governed by physical laws. This is most definitely not the conception of absolute nothing that the video uses. The video alludes to this point when it notes that when these cosmologists appeal to “nothing,” what they actually mean is “an already-existing quantum energy field” (2:08) — i.e., an antecedent physical reality. When cosmologists and physicists who are apologists for atheism — individuals like Victor Stenger¹ or Lawrence Krauss² — argue that physics has shown that our universe can arise from nothing and that God is not needed, they are (perhaps deliberately) being philosophically obtuse and begging the very metaphysical question at issue. Were they to confront the issue fairly, they would find they had no place to stand.

Stephen Meyer’s book Return of the God Hypothesis³, and also the work of philosopher of physics Bruce Gordon⁴, detail how no cosmological theory explains how space and time came into existence from absolute nothing. Even models that involve quantum mechanics applied to space and time presuppose the existence of a universe, or some kind of quantum field. Meyer’s book, which develops a variety of arguments, also presents a version of the video’s argument, but uses the language and mathematical framework employed by cosmologists.

Models of Cosmological Origins Always Confirm This Fundamental Point

Physicists and cosmologists have offered an amazing variety of models describing how our universe might have come into existence from this very substantive conception of “nothing.”⁵ Philosopher Stephen Meyer calls these models “exotic,”⁶  and intelligent design proponents have written many critiques of them.⁷ Some of these models propose or entail the idea that the universe (and eventually the matter and energy inside of it) ultimately popped into existence much like quantum particles do — which is an argument that the video directly addresses. Many of these models are more like scientific conjectures than well-developed theories and key aspects of them are not currently scientifically testable. Moreover, the proliferation of these exotic cosmological models shows that there is no single model that represents a near-universal consensus as to what gave rise to the Big Bang, or any multiverse of which it is a part. But here is the most important point: Even if one of these models was eventually accepted by most scientists, it still would not address the fundamental challenge raised by the video.The video is talking about what could have produced the universe from absolute nothing. By contrast, these various models are merely proposing ways the current universe could have arisen from an already existing primordial physical state. In other words, these models evade the more fundamental question of what explains the existence of a primordial physical state in the first place. As we will see momentarily when we consider the Principle of Sufficient Reason, eventually a supernatural explanation will be required, just as the video argues.

Is Energy Really Conserved throughout the Universe?

The video identifies the law of the conservation of mass-energy as a foundational pillar of modern science (1:28). Some critics might respond to this claim by arguing that no energy conservation law exists in general relativity for the entire universe, and consequently mass and energy could appear spontaneously without cause, contrary to what the video claims. They might also observe that as spacetime expands, the total background vacuum energy of the universe as a whole increases. But the total energy associated with non-relativistic matter remains roughly constant and that associated with radiation (photons and relativistic particles) loses energy due to volume dilution and a redshift effect.⁸ Furthermore, in general relativity, energy-momentum is locally conserved (∇·T = 0) in the regimes relevant here — even though a global energy for an expanding universe is not straightforwardly defined.⁹ Finally, as we will discuss below, there is no ultimate physical explanation for the origin of energy.

Understanding how energy is conserved requires keeping track of all forms of energy. In classical physics, the total energy comprises kinetic energy — energy of motion, such as a ball rolling down a hill — and potential energy, which is stored energy that can be accessed to perform work. Examples of the latter include gravitational potential energy, such as a ball at the top of a tall hill, and electrical potential energy, such as the energy stored in a battery. In general relativity, the energy of quantum fields must also be taken into account. 

Quantum fields permeate space, and they are central to particle physics and most cosmological models. Those who envision mass and energy appearing out of nothing do not appreciate that quantum fields always provide the required energy for their creation. The energy gained from what is created balances the energy lost from the field, so energy conservation still holds.¹⁰

For instance, inflationary models in cosmology postulate that an inflaton field drove the initial expansion of the universe.¹¹ It is assigned a strength φ and an energy density V(φ). The field’s energy density acts like a cosmological constant. The greater the field strength, the greater the field’s energy density, which corresponds to a greater cosmological constant. The greater the cosmological constant, the greater the push to expand space. The cosmological constant works against the gravitational pull resulting from the mass-energy.

In such models, the inflaton field’s energy density is assumed to have been so large at the beginning of the universe that its initial expansion was exceedingly rapid. During this expansion, the field is conjectured to have rolled down its potential energy landscape, resulting in a decrease in its energy density. The stored potential energy of the inflaton field is then postulated to convert into mass-energy (a phase transition often called “reheating”). The sudden appearance of mass-energy in the universe does not violate the conservation of energy since the energy came from the field, as just described. 

Even for those cosmological models that claim the expansion of the universe generates new space filled with inflaton energy, possibly resulting in a net universal energy increase,¹² they must still explain how the universe began with space permeated by a field with a positive energy density. The idea that such energy could first emerge without any physical precursor conflicts with the foundational philosophical principle that something existing at all (e.g., a timeless quantum vacuum) is a fact requiring an explanation. In that regard, the notion of the spontaneous origin of space-time — the fusion of space and time in general relativity — already permeated with energy contradicts the metaphysical principle of causality, which holds that every event (everything that exists or happens) must have a cause (0:26). Let’s delve into the basis for this by examining the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). As we will make clear, only a necessarily existent entity transcending space and time could first bring spacetime, imbued with energy, into existence. 

The Principle of Sufficient Reason 

Physics and cosmology have deep intersections with philosophy. Despite the proliferation of clever and exotic cosmological models, often motivated by a desire to preserve philosophical naturalism, none of them can answer a key philosophical argument based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) — an argument that is closely related to the video’s general observation that “something cannot come from nothing” (0:30).

The PSR states that everything that exists that does not necessarily have to be exactly the way it is (i.e., those things we would call “contingent”) requires an explanation. 

Here’s how the PSR applies to the present video: Even if some alternative exotic cosmological model turns out to be correct and there exist “laws” that operate prior to or outside our observable universe that give rise to our universe (for example, in a multiverse framework or a pre–Big Bang regime), those laws are not self-explanatory. There is nothing about the laws themselves that demand they describe a reality that actually exists, rather than not.

Indeed, the form of natural laws could, in principle, have been otherwise. Einstein’s field equations or the Schrödinger equation are not logically necessary truths — they are contingent descriptions of how our world in fact behaves. These laws operate in our “actual” world, but they are not necessary in all possible worlds.

The fact that our laws describe a life-permitting cosmos, yet things need not have been that way, underscores both their contingency and their teleological force. Many cosmologists (e.g., Carter, Penrose, Rees, Davies, Vilenkin, etc.) point out how improbable it seems that the mathematical form of our laws and the empirically determined constants governing their strength fall into the narrow range that allows a universe like ours to exist and support life. This strengthens our understanding that “these laws could have been otherwise” and the correlated perception that “it seems like we were intended to be here.”

When we consider the various exotic cosmological models that try to explain how the “something” we call our universe might have arisen, we see they always invoke contingent entities or realities that also require explanation. All these clever cosmological models do is create an explanatory regress, pushing the need for an explanation back to another contingent structure that itself needs to be explained. They cannot answer the simple and ultimate question addressed by the Principle of Sufficient Reason: Why is there something rather than nothing? The PSR tells us that there must exist something that transcends contingent reality and explains (or grounds) the being of everything that is contingent. 

Of course, there are those who try to insist that the existence of the universe is just a brute fact that requires no explanation. But here’s the problem with this contention: When someone insists there must be some things that exist for no reason at all (the universe, for example), it becomes impossible to distinguish between things that need an explanation and things that do not, for anything we might think is happening for a reason may in fact be happening for no reason at all. It cannot even be claimed that this is unlikely because no probability is assignable to situations that bear no relationship to the circumstances in which they occurred (because they happened for no reason at all).

This leads to a situation in which rationality collapses. Our ability to distinguish between things requiring an explanation and those that do not is destroyed. This means that science is completely stymied because the assumption that phenomena have causes that can be investigated is completely undermined. For these reasons, affirming the PSR is metaphysically and epistemologically necessary leads to the conclusion that there must be a transcendent first cause that explains why something exists rather than nothing at all.¹³ Thus, the PSR is highly relevant to the core observation the video makes — that “something cannot come from nothing” — and it provides us with a rock solid pathway to the video’s conclusion: a transcendent, supernatural first cause is necessary to explain why our universe and all of its matter and energy exist.¹⁴

Footnotes

1. Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (Prometheus Books, 2008) and The fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us (Prometheus Books, 2011).
2. Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing (Atria Books, 2013).
3. Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (HarperOne, 2021).
4. Bruce Gordon, “How Does the Intelligibility of Nature Point to Design?” in the volume The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith (Harvest House, 2021), pp.253-263.
5. Such models include: inflationary cosmology, the no boundary proposal of Hartle and Hawking, Vilenkin’s quantum vacuum models, the Feldbrugge-Lehner-Turok alternative to Hartle and Hawking, Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology, Steinhardt’s cyclic ekpyrotic models, Gasperini and Veneziano’s string perturbative vacuum models, loop quantum cosmology, and ER=EPR-style emergent spacetime models, and so on. None of these ideas represents a “consensus,” among cosmologists, but all of them presupposed prior laws and fields or structures that shift, rather than remove, the explanatory burden.
6. See Chapter 16 of Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis.
7. See Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis; Bruce L. Gordon, “Balloons on a String: A Critique of Multiverse Cosmology,” in The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science, edited by Bruce L. Gordon and William A. Dembski (ISI Books, 2011), pp. 558-601; Bruce L. Gordon, “Does the Multiverse Refute Cosmic Design?,” in The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith, edited by Joseph Holden, Casey Luskin, and William Dembski (Harvest House, 2021), pp. 457-469.
8. Barbara Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology, Second Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2017), Chapter 5.
9. Szabados, L. B. (2009). “Quasi-Local Energy-Momentum and Angular Momentum in General Relativity.” Living Reviews in Relativity, 2009 12:1, 12(1), 1–163. https://doi.org/10.12942/LRR-2009-4
10. This is true despite the fact that it’s generally recognized that conservation of energy is not well-defined globally in general relativity because of the effects of the expansion of space-time. For further discussion, please see Michael Weiss and John Baez, “Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?” at https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html, and Sean Carroll, “Energy Is Not Conserved,” at https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/. Also, while the question of local energy conservation is complicated by quantum non-locality, this does not in itself create a problem for the global conservation of energy, nor does it obviate the problem in the context of general relativity. See Sean M. Carroll and Jackie Lodman, “Energy Non-conservation in Quantum Mechanics,” Foundations of Physics, 51: 83 (2021).
11. Bassett, B. A., Tsujikawa, S., & Wands, D. (2011). “Inflation dynamics and reheating.” Reviews of Modern Physics, 78(2), 537–589. https://doi.org/10.1103/REVMODPHYS.78.537
12. This is hotly debated. Other cosmological models claim that any new energy that arises during the expansion of space is balanced by other factors such as the negative potential energy of gravity, thereby leading to no new net energy in the universe. There is no cosmological consensus which claims that the expansion of space leads to a net increase of energy in the universe.
13. The need for this is not ameliorated by simply asserting the existence of every possible mathematically describable reality and saying that the existence of ours is explained anthropically as part of this infinite complex by the necessity of the reality we experience being consistent with the conditions required for our existence. Aside from this response being an instance of the reificational fallacy on an uncountably infinite scale, and aside from this strategy being one that completely undermines any basis for distinguishing between likely and unlikely explanations, the fact remains that the actual existence of all mathematically describable realities would itself be contingent and, by the PSR, be in need of an explanation that would inexorably point again to a necessarily existent transcendent being who provides a reason for the existence of any contingent reality. We are thus left with an inescapable conclusion: either we deny the PSR (as the naturalist and materialist seemingly must) and collapse into irremediable skepticism, or we affirm the PSR, recognize the contingency of the universe, and note this entails the existence of a transcendent being as the necessarily existing supernatural source of all reality.
14. Robert C. Koons, “A New Look at the Cosmological Argument,” American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 34 (2): 193-211 (1997); Alexander R. Pruss, The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment (Cambridge University Press, 2006); Alexander R. Pruss and Joshua L. Rasmussen, Necessary Existence (Oxford University Press, 2018); Robert C. Koons and Alexander R. Pruss, “Skepticism and The Principle of Sufficient Reason,” Philosophical Studies, 178: 1079-1099 (2021).