Isaac Asimov writing in the Smithsonian Institute
Journal, June 1970, on p.6 said: “Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the second law is all about.”
Are there other laws of science that should be considered in forming our hypothesis regarding the existence of the universe? The first law that would seem to be appropriate would be the Law of Cause and Effect. If there was a state of nothingness, but now there exists a universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy; what would be the Cause to this coming into existence?
The universe coming into existence would be the Effect, but what would the Cause be?
The universal Law of Cause and Effect states that for every effect there is a definite cause. The effect would be the universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy coming into existence out of a state of nothingness. What was the cause? The existence of the universe, when there once was a state of nothingness, demands that there be a Cause.
What about the Law of Inertia? Would that have any bearing on the existence of the universe?
Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain in that state, unless acted upon by an external force or agent, and a body in motion will remain in that state unless acted upon by an external force or agent. Sometimes called the Law of Inertia.
Question: Would a state of nothingness be like a state of perfect rest? If so, it should remain in that state, unless acted upon by an external force or agent. Scientifically, it should not change, in and of itself.
Some scientists believe this law would not allow matter and energy to come out of a state of nothingness; at least through natural processes.
Dr. Robert Gauge in Origins and Destiny,1986, p. 17 stated: "The First Law has been the object of considerable thought since it was first introduced to the world by William Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius. It forbids a natural process from bringing something from nothing."
Some believe in the “Big Bang” theory, there was an explosion from the state of nothingness that brought the universe into existence.
Physicist Paul Davies in his book - The Edge of Infinity, says this about this explosion from nothingness that brought everything into existence: "(It) represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle"
Would the First Law seem to indicate this is not something that we should expect to happen scientifically, or naturally?
on our observations and the laws of science, what would the most likely answer
seem to be to my question: “Why is there a universe here instead of nothing?”
A hypothesis is like a trial answer or an educated guess as to what the answer to your problem or question could be. A hypothesis must be falsifiable.
Based on the First Law of Thermodynamics; a universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy should not come into existence out of a state of nothingness through a natural process. Combine that with the Law of Cause and Effect; it would appear that whatever that first Cause was, it was not what would be considered a natural process.
Factor in the Law of Inertia; and whatever that first Cause was, it would have to be in the form of an external force or agent that acted upon that state of nothingness to bring something out of nothing. How do we put this in the form of a hypothesis?
It is extremely important to keep in mind that it is the observations that generate hypotheses. My hypothesis should be based solely on what is observed. The laws of science are well established observations. It is these observations that should be used in formulating my hypothesis.
An external, supernatural (it was not a natural process), first Cause, acted upon a state of nothingness and brought a universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy into existence.
If the universe came into existence when a supernatural external force or agent acted upon a state of nothingness, what would we expect to find?
Does science require it can only be a natural
cause that was undirected and had no purpose? The laws of science would seem to indicate it was something other than a natural undirected process.
Would it be appropriate to predict evidence of purpose and design in the
world around us? Why or why not,
Earth is just the right distance from both the sun and moon. We have just the right amount of gravity, air, atmosphere, thickness of the earth’s crust, etc. Was the earth brought into existence and formed for the purpose of being inhabited?
Should the extreme complexity of the human body be considered evidence for purpose and design? In testing our hypothesis should we predict that no such evidence should exist?
Some have asked: "If an external force or agent brought this universe into existence, what caused the external force or agent to exist?"
That is an unscientific question. A First Cause never requires the existence of another Cause.
If we could somehow set our worldview biases aside, and concentrate on scientific investigation only, how much more might be accomplished in the name of science. Under those conditions we might already have a better explanation for the beginning of the universe.
If you are reading this document you are probably are looking at this issue through one of two worldview investigative lenses. Worldviews, as I have said before, are like wearing a pair of sunglasses. Sometimes we have sunglasses
on and forget we are wearing them. If someone else might attempt to remove those sunglasses for us, we will probably react defensively.
Scientists and other folks react the same way
regarding their worldviews. I have a serious question for you. Are you able to clearly separate your philosophical worldview from
real scientific investigation and not be affected by it?
My desire is that at the very least, you would be an honest sincere seeker of truth. I hope you will
develop a real passion for knowing the truth, not just the "truth" as we want to imagine it.
Much of the clip art on this site is courtesy of Phillip Martin.