I was recently watching some videos from Minute Physics regarding different theories on the universe, and was wondering what you guys thought of them.
These two videos go over something I think I had asked somewhere before, the cyclical universe theory and the parallel universe theory. However, I think these questions deserve a bit more analysis, as (judging by what the narrator said in the video on the Big Bang and religion) these could be potential points of contention from science and faith.
My thoughts are it’s irrelevant if the “universe” always existed or even if causes regress infinitely in the past in a linear fashion. The cosmological argument for God’s existence (based on Aristotle’s prime mover and Aquinas’s first two ways) doesn’t care about any of these and though I am partial towards the KCA, and generally question an infinite regress, they are utterly irrelevant to classical theism and rational proofs of God’s existence. I’d classify both of the ideas you asked about as unknowable guesses playing dress up in lab coats.
Vinnie
Could you explain a little bit of these arguments? I would be very curious to know more.
However, I think the author makes a fair assessment. I mean, re-interpretation based on new evidence is kinda Biologos thing. However, the way he framed this specific issue (and considering the name of the one video) had me believe that there was a big issue at hand.
I think you are entirely correct at the strictly philosophical level. Classical theism (especially as articulated by Aristotle and Aquinas ) does not depend on whether the universe had a temporal beginning or whether there is an infinite regress in time. Aquinas himself explicitly held that reason alone cannot prove that the world began in time (ST I, q. 46, a. 2). His First and Second Ways concern hierarchical causation in the present, not temporal beginnings. So in that sense, you are absolutely right: the cosmological argument of classical theism does not rise or fall on Big Bang cosmology or the impossibility of infinite past regress.
However, I think there is another dimension to consider, not strictly philosophical, but epistemic and cultural.
While classical theism may not require a temporal beginning of the universe, the overwhelming majority of people are not engaging with Aristotelian metaphysics or the distinction between per se and per accidens causal series. For most people, arguments like the fine-tuning of the universe or the apparent contingency of cosmic constants function as intuitive, accessible pointers toward transcendence.
If our universe is uniquely fine-tuned with probabilities so astronomically low as to approach zero, that fact operates as an immediately graspable rational sign of design. Many contemporary philosophers of religion (such as Robin Collins and William Lane Craig) have argued that fine-tuning provides a powerful abductive case for theism precisely because of its probabilistic structure.
But if one posits a multiverse containing trillions (or infinitely many) universes with varying constants, the explanatory force shifts. The appearance of design can be reframed as a kind of “cosmic Darwinism,” where selection effects replace teleology. Whether or not that ultimately refutes classical theism is another matter (it does not ) but culturally and psychologically it renders God far less obviously necessary to the average observer (which already tends to be tiepid regarding God but at least right now if he wants he can find some good evidence of His existence).
In that sense, while metaphysically irrelevant to classical theism, such developments are not culturally neutral. They can shift the intuitive plausibility structure within which people form beliefs. As Alvin Plantinga has argued, belief in God may be properly basic, but cultural conditions can either support or erode the ease with which such belief is formed and sustained (Warranted Christian Belief, 2000). If the intellectual atmosphere increasingly frames reality as self-explanatory through impersonal mechanisms, even if those mechanisms do not logically eliminate God, they can render Him psychologically superfluous for many.
A similar dynamic appears in discussions surrounding the “hard problem of consciousness.” Philosophers like David Chalmers have argued that subjective experience resists reduction to purely physical processes. Yet if, hypothetically, a fully reductive material explanation of consciousness were demonstrated, classical Christianity could still affirm the resurrection of the body as its ultimate hope. The Christian doctrine of resurrection does not require the survival of the soul; it requires divine re-creation and continuity of personal identity (however, such a development would significantly affect traditions that dogmatically teach an intermediate disembodied state between death and the resurrection, since those traditions would see their doctrinal authority completely undermined.).
More broadly, even if it did not logically refute Christian faith, it would make transcendence feel far less necessary than it currently is in the cultural imagination and would entrench the materialists in their materialism even more (and would drive to materialism even many who are now open to the existence of a spiritual realm). Faith would not be disproven, but it would become far less reasonable to the average person.
We see a comparable pattern in historical Jesus studies. The so-called “Third Quest” significantly re-dated and reassessed New Testament sources, often arguing for earlier and more reliable traditions than Enlightenment-era skepticism allowed. The early formulation of the 1 Corinthians 15 creed (commonly dated by scholars such as James D. G. Dunn and Gary Habermas to within a few years of the crucifixion) provides historical grounding for resurrection belief. If, instead, critical scholarship had decisively confirmed a very late legendary development of the Gospels, Christians could still believe by faith, but that faith would appear far more detached from historical plausibility, resting on what critics would call wishful thinking rather than historically credible testimony.
So my point is this: at the level of rigorous metaphysics, you are correct. Classical theism does not depend on cosmology, neuroscience, or historical-critical consensus.
But at the level of cultural epistemology (the formation of belief among ordinary people ) these developments matter profoundly. They shape what Charles Taylor calls the “conditions of belief” (A Secular Age, 2007). When naturalistic explanations accumulate across domains ( cosmology, biology, consciousness, history ) they may not logically refute theism, yet they can create an environment in which God appears increasingly unnecessary.
And when God appears unnecessary, even if not disproven, many will conclude He is. So while I agree that infinite regress or an eternal universe does not threaten classical theism philosophically, I would add that such ideas can significantly affect the broader intellectual climate. They can strengthen atheists in their convictions and incline those who are undecided toward materialism, not because theism has been logically defeated, but because its intuitive plausibility has been diminished.
That distinction (between metaphysical validity and cultural plausibility ) seems to me essential in this discussion.
To be honest, I actually can relate to this on many levels. I’ve had serious doubts arise from both the question of the multiverse and the problem of consciousness. Neither problem bothers me anymore (I even think Biologos wrote several articles regarding the multiverse, which was actually what helped me with that issue). Even though I had recently heard about the evidence for the resurrection, I was still having anxiety because of these question. The debate still rages about these questions but I think that trying to push unnecessary arguments is what does cause some apologetic arguments to stumble. I often ask why the evidence for Jesus’s rise from the dead isn’t the first link in every apologetics site. Instead, it seems that theists and atheists are locked in combat on issues like these that will probably remain unsolved for a while.
I actually think that, at present, consciousness is extremely difficult to reduce to materialism. I was speaking hypothetically, imagining a scenario in which it were conclusively demonstrated that consciousness is entirely the product of material processes, as strict materialists argue.
Even in that case, belief in the afterlife would not necessarily collapse, since the Christian hope of the resurrection could still stand on its own theological foundations. However, it would undoubtedly appear far more intangible to the average person, especially to those (99,99%) who are not engaging in philosophical discussions on platforms like BioLogos.
It is not surprising. I sometimes think that certain questions are pressed so insistently because some people are uncomfortable with the idea that faith might possess any degree of rational credibility. They would prefer faith to be confined to the realm of wishful thinking for ordinary people, and to abstract philosophical or metaphysical speculation for specialists, knowing full well that only a small minority engage deeply with those disciplines.
There seems to be a recurring impulse, to resist the notion that faith could have any meaningful empirical or commonly accessible rational grounding. Not necessarily because it has been refuted, but because its reasonableness itself is perceived as problematic.
The Resurrection is indeed the most powerful argument. Of course, in theory, a materialist could attempt to explain it away, for example, by suggesting that Jesus was some kind of highly advanced extraterrestrial being. That is not logically impossible, however childish, ridiculous or ad hoc it may seem. One can always construct alternative hypotheses if one is determined enough.
However, the strength of the Resurrection is precisely why many insist on the claim that the Gospels are late inventions, and that the divinization and resurrection of Jesus were later theological developments (there are many YouTube videos that bring these arguments), even if these theories have long been disproven. Such narratives are appealing because they tell many people what they already want to believe (as if eternal life, hope and purpose were bad news), and they know that most will not investigate the historical evidence closely. Yet the Resurrection remains uniquely powerful as an argument because the standard dismissals are deeply problematic.
The claim that the disciples simply fabricated the story does not withstand scrutiny. People may die for something that is false but believed to be true; they do not willingly suffer persecution and death for what they know to be a deliberate lie.
The “late legendary development” hypothesis has been disproven by the early dating of key New Testament materials, particularly the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, which many scholars date to within a few years of the crucifixion.
As for the hallucination hypothesis, it struggles to account for multiple group appearances, the empty tomb traditions, and the transformation of frightened disciples into bold proclaimers of the Resurrection. Hallucinations, as we understand them, do not typically function in coordinated, repeated, multi-person experiences.
For these reasons, the Resurrection remains the most historically grounded and intellectually compelling foundation of Christian faith, which is why the third quest has been a real thorn in the flesh for many.
P.s: sometimes I use this somewhat polemical language (that may seem a “they” vs “us” type of attitude) because I reject the notion that all people are good and are naturally seeking God. That is not true. Some people are indeed like this, but there are also those who (while not “bad people” in the secular sense )are genuinely opposed to God and to His children. To believe that such people do not exist is like walking deep into the woods assuming that wolves and bears are not there and cannot harm you.
There are situations in which we are dealing with people who are acting in good faith, and others in which we are dealing with people who are truly closed to God. And the more visible and influential such people are, the more harmful their influence can be.
Good analysis as always. I think you are onto something with the conscience ideas but this particular thing doesn’t bother me as much. I think a different Biologos article (I long forgot which one) briefly discussed ideas of consciousness and criticized efforts to try and find “structures” where our consciousness communicated with the rest of the Universe. The thing that gets me nervous is new scientific discoveries in general. I don’t think they would ever encompass theories relating to God but the idea that I could wake up and “definite proof that God doesn’t exist” is sometimes a scary one. I think that I blow a lot of my fears way out of proportion. You, along with everyone else on this forum, seem to be much more comfortable with science than I currently am. Any tips for reducing this fear?
Me neither. On the contrary, as I said, I believe that today the idea that consciousness can entirely be reduced to matter is far weaker than in the past.
I understand where you’re coming from, because you live in a world that constantly tries to convince you that believing in God makes you naïve or foolish. Let’s be honest about it, this is the broader cultural climate we are all breathing in. So it’s not surprising that this atmosphere can plant fear and doubt in many people’s minds; in fact, that is precisely why it exists.
The Bible speaks very clearly on this subject. In 1 John 5:19 it says: “We know that we are from God, and that the whole world lies under the power of the evil one.”
So yes, we are living in a world that actively tries to pull people away from God, there is no denying that. The good news is that they (the principalities and powers that rule this world c.f Ephesians 6:12) are powerless when it comes to Christ’s sheep’s.
John 10:28: “My sheep recognise my voice and I know who they are. They follow me and I give them eternal life. They will never die and no one can snatch them out of my hand.”
So don’t be afraid. Not because this world isn’t evil but because our Lord has overcome this world and its prince.
John 16:33: “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”.
Christ is the king, brother, and one day, at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth.
There is nothing to be afraid of.
Pray a lot, pray for enlightenment from God, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you. Be persistent and stubborn in your prayers to the point of being annoying to God LOL. Study as well, but above all, pray. And remember that many scientists are Christians, which would hardly be the case if science were truly in contradiction with faith.
I think one of the bigger issues I have is that there does exist an atheist (and other faiths, for that matter) population. To me, the fact that (despite the compelling evidence for Christ), some atheists (like my nemesis from before) and others can make a compelling case against Christianity makes me question how solid my faith is. Of course, this may very well be misdirected. Many of these arguments (as is the case with my nemesis) deal with mostly useless topics: criticism of God, doctrine, etc and not the real life Christ Himself. Sure, my nemesis may have come out of faith because of the concept of Hell, but that doesn’t say anything about Jesus. Any thoughts?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
