Modern scientific theories and hypotheses around the origin of the universe fully support the necessity of a non-material first cause, a “creator”, for the universe. For instance, both the Standard Big Bang Model and the various proposed Past-extended Big Bang Models, necessitate a beginning of the universe and of time itself. As such, the argument for the existence of a creator from cosmology (the Cosmological Argument) proceeds as follows:
(a) Like everything bound by physical laws, the universe has a beginning (scientists agree). Therefore,
(b) infinite regression of physical causality to explain the existence of the universe is not possible (i.e. you can’t keep going back forever in a chain of causes to explain how the universe exists,) because of the conclusion in (a) that everything bound by physical laws already has a beginning, Therefore,
(c) there is either nothing or something not physical, that caused the universe to exist; but,
(d) nothing is not capable of causing anything into existence. Therefore,
(e) the universe was brought into existence by a non-material creator.
We suggest you read it again, the Cosmological Argument follows strict logic that can be missed if read too quickly.
The first condition in (a) is proven by modern scientific theories explaining the origin of the universe. Thanks to the Big Bang theory, everyone now knows that the universe and time had a beginning. Whether that beginning was a point of singularity, or an uncertain event (similar to a rounded beginning point of a cone), both possibilities necessitate a beginning to the universe.
Alternative past-extended Big Bang Models such as the bouncing universe or eternal inflation would put the beginning of the universe before the Big Bang but still necessitate an overall beginning for the universe. This is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Radiation Paradox, and the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem.
For example, the Second Law of Thermodynamics stipulates that all physical events evolve from order to disorder (i.e. low entropy to high entropy), so the universe couldn’t have been eternally bouncing or eternally inflating because entropy/disorder cannot decrease, it can only increase or stay the same.
Our universe started with very tiny entropy. If the universe was eternally bouncing by expanding, then collapsing, then expanding, and so on, then how can our current universe have such a tiny entropy after all these infinite cycles? Of course, this is not possible and would necessitate a beginning to the universe; it couldn’t have been around since eternity given the low entropy that we are observing.
Another evidence is the Bore-Vilenkin Guth Theorem which stipulates that as long as matter has positive pressure and density called the average Hubble expansion rate – which it does – then all alternative models for the Past Extended Big Bang such as the bouncing universe or multiverses or higher dimensional cosmologies will all need a boundary for past time, that is, a beginning.
The second condition (b) flows from the first condition simply because any universe or physical causation for our current universe will itself have to have a beginning. As such, an infinite regression of physical causality (i.e. this happened, which caused this to happen, which in turn did this etc.) is not possible.
We are, therefore, left with either nothing causing the universe to exist or something not physical, which is the argument in (c). But nothing can’t cause anything, otherwise nothing will itself be something, which is not nothing! We are only left with something to have caused the universe to exist, but that something can’t be physical because it would be bound to condition (a) of needing a beginning. That non-physical something is the Creator of the universe. That’s the Cosmological Argument.
Other articles on proof for the existance of God:
