Chapter 11: The Created Universe

1. Introduction
   • What God Created: Spirit and Matter
     • “By His almighty power [God] created together in the beginning of time both creatures, the Spiritual and the Corporeal, namely the Angelic and the earthly and afterwards the human, as it were a common creature, composed of spirit and body” (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; 149-2).
     • Sheed uses this quote on page 149 when he speaks of when the universe was created. I’m including it here to emphasize an aspect of the creation of spiritual beings that is easily overlooked.
     • We are familiar with the subject of angels and human souls, both of which are rational spiritual beings, but we are not so familiar with the subject of non-rational spiritual beings.
   • Non-Rational Spiritual Beings
     • It is evident that every material thing can be detected directly or indirectly by one or more of our five senses (hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting and touching).
     • Now, it is clear that there are some things that are in no way detectable by any one of our five senses. Some examples are the following:
       • The inalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence.
         • Have you ever seen the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
       • Numbers
         • Have you ever detected a number with your senses?
         • Recall that the symbols we write to express numbers are actually Arabic numerals (cf. Roman numerals) rather than the numbers themselves.
         • Numbers are ideas; they give off no sound, they have no color, no scent, no taste and they cannot be touched.
       • Justice
         • Have you ever detected justice with your senses? You may have seen an act that was consistent with the concept of justice, but that act is not justice itself.
       • The principles of geometric figures
         • Have you ever detected the principle of a circle with your senses? You have certainly seen a circle, but have you ever seen the principle by which a particular geometrical object is a circle?
           • The principle of circularity: The locus of all points lying in a plane and equidistant from a common point that lies in the same plane.
     • All of these things, and many others, are non-material beings. They exist; and they are real, but they do not consist of matter.
       • We refer to these non-material beings as non-rational spiritual beings, as opposed to rational spiritual beings (angels, human souls).
       • Rational spiritual beings have the faculties of intellect and will; they are ordered to activity.
       • Non-rational spiritual beings, on the other hand, possess no powers of activity, as is the case with inanimate (i.e., “not animated” material beings).
     • We can recognize the difference between spiritual beings and material beings by observing whether or not they can be detected by the senses. The senses are incapable of detecting spiritual beings, whereas material beings can be detected by the senses.
2. The Universe Mirrors God
   • Not Mirrored as Simply the Highest Degree of Created Perfection
     • “When God mirrored Himself in the infinite, He produced one image with all the perfections of the Infinite” (139-3).
     • We might have expected that His self-mirroring in the finite would also produce a single image with the perfections of the infinite represented to the highest degree that they could be represented in nothingness (139-3).
     • However, such a mirroring would have limited the created universe to the highest rank of angels, which would have shut out the rest of the angels, all of mankind, and all other living creatures (140-1).
   • Complexity in Creation Mirrors Simplicity in the Creator
     • Because God didn’t take the approach of creating only a single, highly-perfected being, we can safely conclude that the utter simplicity of Infinite Existence is best mirrored in the created universe as extreme complexity (140-1, 2).
       • One reason being that nothing better represents infinity to finite minds than overwhelming multiplicity and variety (140-2).
     • Note that the complexity of the universe is not a chaotic complexity, but one that is ordered exceedingly well. Hence, “underlying the multiplicity of things is the unifying design of God” (140-2, 3).
       • “[Wisdom] reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and she orders all things well” (Wis 8:1).
     • Because God is the supremely rational being, a chaotically complex universe would not be a fitting expression of the Divine Nature. Such a universe “would not have conveyed God but betrayed Him” (140-3).
       • A chaotically complex universe would appear to us as a universe of confusion but “God is not a God of confusion” (1 Cor 14:33).
     • Principles of Differentiation in Reality
       • Within our complex universe, we can readily see that there are various levels of differentiation among created beings.
       • In what follow we will be addressing three principles of differentiation found in reality: Likeness to God, Degree of Being and Susceptibility to Change.
       • While doing this, keep in mind that we have already discussed the major principle of differentiation in all of reality, which separates the infinite from the finite.
         • God is existence. It is His nature to exist. He possesses infinite existence because He is existence.
         • All created beings receive existence as a participation in divine existence. They possess the contingent existence of nothingness raised to some degree of existence by omnipotence.
           • “Creatures receive being as a participation of the divine being, their essences limiting the degree of this participation” (Maurer, “Thomas Aquinas on Being and Essence”, 9)
3. A First Principle of Differentiation: Likeness to God
   • Image and Likeness
     • In created being we find a fundamental principle of differentiation that separates created being into two major divisions: beings created in God’s likeness and beings that are not created in His likeness (141-2).
       • Things created in God’s likeness are spirit (141-2).
       • Everything else is matter (141-2).
       • Man is the one being in whom the two are combined (141-2).
   • Imprint
     • Though likeness is limited to spiritual beings, all created beings contain God’s imprint.
       • Indeed, all things produced by any maker have some degree of resemblance to the maker (141-3).
       • The design of the thing made comes from the mind of the maker, and it is formed by the workmanship of the maker. Hence, the thing necessarily bears the maker’s imprint (141-3).
       • Some things are capable of resembling their maker more than others. For example, compare the chair made by a carpenter to an artist’s self-portrait (141-3).
         • Both contain the makers imprint but the self-portrait, in addition, bears a likeness to the artist that the chair does not bear to the carpenter (141-3).
         • Some examples of divine imprint: “trinities” in the material universe
           • Space, time, matter
             • Space: three dimensions
             • Time: three tenses
             • Matter: three states
           • Triple point of substances
           • Beauty: Goodness, truth, unity
   • Likeness by Intentional Design
     • Returning to the subject of likeness, Sheed writes: “There is a world of difference between the resemblance a thing cannot help having to its maker (i.e., imprint) and the resemblance where the maker has definitely set out to produce his own likeness” (141-3).
     • The creation account in Genesis tells us that God made all things, but it puts an additional twist on the making of man (141-4).
       • On the sixth day “God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:25).
         • The text indicates no difference between the making of the land animals on the sixth day and the making of the swimming and flying creatures on the previous day.
       • Still on the sixth day, after the creation of all other beings, “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them . . . And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen 1:26-27, 31).
       • Hence, man is made in the image and likeness of God because “man’s soul is a spirit, as God Himself is” (141-4).
         • Angels, too, are spirit and are, thus, also created in the image and likeness of God (141-4).
       • Despite the fact that angels and man are made in the image of God being either pure spirits (angels) or a union of spirit and matter (human nature), there is still an infinite gap between created spirit and uncreated spirit.
     • The fact that material things are not made in the image of God does not give us reason to hold material things in disdain because they bear God’s imprint (141-4).
       • “[God] has uttered [matter], and it can utter Him to us” (141-4).
         • “For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen” (Wis 13:5, NAB).
         • “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork” (Ps 19:1).
         • Examples abound: the stars at night, a full moon at moonrise/set, a beautiful sunrise/set, the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls . . . (see Fr. Dubay’s, “The Evidential Power of Beauty”).
       • This imprint, of course, can be seen as a kind of likeness, though it falls well short of the uncreated spirit to created spirit likeness between God, on the one hand, and angels and man on the other.
         • “’All beings cohere in an order, and this is the form by which the universe is like God.” The likeness of the universe to God lies in its order, in its organic unity” (Dante, “Paradiso” I, 109, quoted in “Craft of Catechesis”, 29).
       • So, all of the material world has a likeness
4. Grades of Being: A Second Principle of Differentiation
   • Spirit and Matter:
     • Note that in speaking of spirit, Sheed is always referring to rational spirit, and that will generally be the case for these notes as well.
     • Having examined the differentiating principle of likeness, we observe that there are two grades of being in the universe: spirit and matter
     • Spirit:
       • Regarding the nature of spirit: “Spirit is the being which has a permanent hold upon its own nature, which cannot be changed into anything else, which can be only itself” (142-1)
         • From chapter 2: “Spirit is the being which has its own nature so firmly in its grasp that it can never become some other thing” (33-3).
       • Regarding the activity of spirit: “[Rational] spirit is the being that knows and loves” (142-1; 33-3)
         • These definitions of spirit are true to the fullest extent only in God, who is infinite spirit (142-1).
         • They are also true of angels and human souls, but with limitations due to each being’s finite nature (142-1).
     • Matter: The definitions of spirit are not true of matter (142-1).
       • Regarding the nature of matter, it has no permanence; it is always experiencing accidental change, and always susceptible to substantial change (142-1).
       • Matter cannot know and love (it has no intellect or will) (142-1).
   • Spirit Has More Being than Matter
     • We can see from this comparison between spirit and matter that we are speaking of two classes of things that possess obviously different grades of “being.”
       • Note: In English the word “being” is used in reference to both “the act of existing” (being) and “something that exists” (a being).
         • The difference between “the act of existing” and “something that exists” is analogous to the difference between the act of running and the something that runs, respectively.
     • Thus, when we say that we have two different grades of being, we are saying that one of these two classes of things (i.e., spirit) participates in the divine existence to a higher degree than the other.
       • Recall from the notes for chapter 3: “Creatures receive being as a participation (via created existence) of the divine being, their essences [i.e., natures] limiting the degree of this participation” (Maurer, “Thomas Aquinas on Being and Essence”, 9)
     • Consequently, we say “spirit has more being than matter” (142-2) because spirit participates in the divine existence to a greater extent than matter’s participation in divine existence.
       • Alternatively, we can say spirit is more like God than matter. Since God is the fullness of being, spirit must have more being than matter.
     • “We are accustomed to think more of what things do than [how they are] what they are” (142-2).
       • In the above sentence, Sheed has “of” rather than “how they are,” but he intends to speak of the act of existing rather than nature. “What they are” refers to nature (nature answers the question What). How a being is what it is refers to the act of existing.
       • For example, later in the paragraph he says “be-ing is a kind of doing” (just like running is a kind of doing). This is clearly a reference to the act of existing rather than a reference to an entity that we would call a being (e.g., a human being).
   • The Challenge of “Is”
     • The challenge we have in understanding this is partially due to the fact that the verb “to be” is an irregular verb (i.e., its form doesn’t change in a regular way from tense to tense, person to person and singular to plural).
     • The word “being” is derived from “to be” which is the infinitive (a noun) of the irregular verb “is.”
       • Infinitive: to be (other forms: is, am, are, been, was, were, being)
       • A runner is anyone who runs. Similarly, a being is anything that “be-s”: “Spirit be-s more than matter be-s” (142-2).
     • Ironically, spirit, which seems to us as almost nothing, “is more than matter is: there is more to it, it has more being, it does more being” (143-1).
   • Being as Power to Reflect God
     • Regarding grades of being we can say: “The amount of any thing’s being is the amount of its response to the power of God.” Alternatively, “the measure of every creature’s being is the power God gives it to reflect God” (143-2).
       • What Sheed is saying is that a thing’s “response to the power of God” is expressed by its nature. Thus, an angel is a greater response of nothingness to the power of God than is a rock, because an angel has a higher nature than that of a rock.
   • God’s Modes of Presence to Created Things.
     • The grade of a being also corresponds to variations in the degree to which God is present to a being:
       • Regarding what God is, He is present to all things equally, holding them in existence (143-2).
       • Regarding what God does, He is present to things variously according to the amount of being He wills them to have (143-2).
     • Within the two orders of being that we have with spirit and matter, there are further grades of being that will be addressed later (see 160-3).
   • Gaps in the Order of Being: Infinity and Immortality
     • Infinity: Infinite Spirit vs. Finite Spirit
       • We have discussed up to this point (143-3) two principal differentiators, likeness to God (via image) and grades of being (via response to God’s power):
         • Infinite spirit – God (fullness of being – God is existence)
         • Created (rational) spirit – (likeness to God and more being than matter – Angels, human souls)
         • Matter (no likeness to God; imprint only; less being than created spirit)
       • Contrast the distance between infinite spirit and created (i.e., finite) spirit with the distance between created spirit and matter (143-2).
         • The former distance is infinite, the latter distance, though enormous, is ridiculously small (derisory) by comparison (144-1).
         • Infinite spirit exists necessarily, finite spirit exists contingently, that is finite spirit must be brought into existence and continuously held in existence by God (144-2).
         • Infinite spirit is eternal, finite spirit is immortal
     • Immortality: Finite spirit (immortal) vs. matter (transient)
       • Despite the infinite distance between infinite spirit and finite spirit, the immortality of finite spirit is a great glory relative to the transient existence of matter (144-2).
         • The glory of finite spirit is conditional, but the condition will never fail (144-3).
       • Finite spirit possesses all of its (limited) being as a single reality, as opposed to matter which “does not possess its being in one single . . . reality” (144-4).
         • Finite spirit is neither eternal (as is infinite spirit), nor continuously changing (as is matter).
       • Matter’s being is dispersed being. Consequently (144-3):
         • Matter occupies space
         • Matter consists of parts, which are continuously broken up and reassembled. As soon as matter begins to be, it begins to be something else (i.e., begins to change) (144-4).
5. Susceptibility to Change: A Third Principle of Differentiation
   • Types of Change
     • Just as we can order beings according to their likeness to God and to their degree of being (see 143-2), we can also order them according to their susceptibility to change (144-5).
       • Change is always the result of a lack of something. Hence, the more deficient a being is, the more susceptible it is to change; the less susceptible a being is to change, the more perfect it is (144-5).
     • Infinite Being (uncreated spirit) possesses all perfections to their fullness and is, therefore, incapable of change (145-2).
     • All created beings are “good, of course, because they are made by the Supreme Good, but mutable because they are made of nothing” (145-2, quoting the Council of Florence).
       • However, not all created being are mutable to the same extent (145-2).
     • Created spirit, “having no parts, cannot suffer substantial change,” that is, its substance is not capable of change. It can only suffer accidental change (145-3).
       • Review of substance and accidents (first mentioned in chapter 8 notes)
         • Substance: “A being whose nature it is to exist in itself”; a being that exists independently (Sullivan, “An Introduction to Philosophy, 235, 236).
           • A being that experiences substantial change has become another type of being, another substance.
         • Accident: “A being whose nature it is to exist in another” (Ibid., 235).
           • A substance (i.e., being) that experiences accidental change remains what it was.
       • Finite spirit can experience accidental changes for example, changes in operation (e.g., delivering a message), qualities (e.g., growth in virtue), and relations (loving a person more or less) (145-3).
         • It can be in one place or another
         • It can pass from one intellectual activity to another
     • Matter, because it consists of parts, experiences ceaseless accidental change (145-4).
       • Temperature, size, location, color, physical state, etc.
     • It is subject to substantial change, in which it becomes some other substance (145-4).
       • For example, sodium and chlorine can be changed into table salt. In this change, neither possesses its original set of properties. Hence, we have a substantial change, a change in substance.
6. Relations to Change
   • From what we have discussed it is evident that there are three “durational” relations to change based on whether a being is immutable, substantially permanent, or mutable (145-5).
   • Eternity (infinite spirit): The utter changelessness of infinite spirit in regard to both substantial and accidental change (146-1).
     • “Time is the duration of that which changes, as eternity is the duration [sic] of that which changes not” (146-1).
       • Recall that “duration” is a word of time; thus, we have to make the mental adjustments in order to use the word in the definition of eternity. Eternity is the “tota simul” of Boethius (see p. 67).
   • Aeviternity (finite spirit): The substantial permanence of finite spirit, combined with its ability to undergo accidental change (i.e., changes in operation, qualities, and relations) (146-1, 2)
     • An angel, for example, can acquire new knowledge. This is “accidental change,” (i.e., a change in accidents) rather than a change to the substance (i.e., nature) of the angel (146-1).
       • Nevertheless, it is a real change; there is clearly a before and after moment for the angel (146-1).
     • Between such changes “the [angel] rests in the changeless possession of what he has” (146-1).
       • The angel’s “now” more closely resembles the “tota simul,” the all at once of eternity, than the “nunc fluens,” the flowing now of time (146-1).
     • This type of duration which is neither time nor eternity, during which the angel’s “essence or substance knows no change” but during which accidental changes can take place has its own name: aeviternity. It can be thought of as “discontinuous” time (146-1).
       • “An angelic instant, which is the measure of one angelic thought, may correspond to a more or less long period of our time, according to the more or less deep absorption of the angel in one thought. An analogy . . . is that of the contemplative who may rest for hours in one and the same truth” (LaGrange, “Reality,” p. 173).
     • Aeviternity is more closely related to eternity than time, for spirit is free of substantial change, and it exists in a state of changelessness between its occasions of accidental change (146-1).
   • Time (matter) (145-5): The lack of substantial permanence in matter, combined with its continuous accidental change.
     • Time is the measure of change [of material beings].
     • The difference between aeviternity and time is the difference between occasional accidental changes (for spirit) and continuous accidental changes combined with the ongoing process of substantial change (for matter).
7. Aeviternity and the Soul
   • Aeviternity is the proper sphere of every created spirit and, hence, the proper sphere of the soul. However, due to its intimate relationship to the body (matter), it has a relationship to continuous time (146-2).
     • It’s worth noting that because the proper sphere of the soul is aeviternity, and the proper sphere of the body (matter) is time (i.e., continuous change), “love of change is a disease that the soul contracts from the body” (146-2).
   • After death, the soul’s experience of duration will be that of aeviternity, whether in purgatory, heaven or hell.
   • However, the soul can experience aeviternity in this life on occasion when it has the experience of an advanced form of prayer that is called contemplation (147-1).
     • Note: Sheed implies that contemplation is something we can do on our own initiative when he says “During contemplation, time really does stand still for the soul, which is one reason we should practice it” (147-1).
     • However, contemplation is infused prayer and it is only experienced on God’s initiative. The best we can do is dispose ourselves to it through the regular practice of Christian meditation which will naturally bring us to the state of being disposed to contemplation, after some period of time, which is typically measured in years.
8. Creation in Time
   • Space and Time
     • Because “time is a measure of change,” it follows that unless there is a being that can experience substantial change there can be no time (147-1, 147-2).
       • “Apart from a being whose changes time measures, time is nothing at all” (147-3).
     • When we speak of creation we are talking about an act by which God, who “[fully] possesses the whole of His being in one single act of being, brought into existence a universe which does not possess its being thus in one single act, but part by part and moment by moment” (147-3).
       • The “part by part” aspect of creation refers to the universe’s need for space in which to spread its parts (147-3).
       • The “moment by moment” aspect of creation refers to the universe’s need for time so that it can successively possess its being (147-3).
     • These are the two limitations of the universe:
       • Because the universe exists part by part, it never wholly possesses itself (147-3).
       • Because the universe works out its reality from moment, there is no moment in which it is all that it could be (147-3).
     • Hence, space and time are characteristics of the universe, both of which express its finitude (147-3).
     • Therefore, space and time need the universe, for “space and time are not realities which can exist apart from the universe” (148-1)
       • Space is simply the place where matter arranges it parts. “If there were no material objects, there would be no space either” (148-1).
         • As written, this sentence implies that God could not have created empty space by itself (i.e., without matter) because space’s existence is dependent on the existence of matter.
         • Matter is obviously dependent on space, but the reverse is not obvious and, perhaps, questionable as stated.
         • However, if we understand Sheed’s sentence to mean that God would not have created space just for the sake of having space because He only does necessary things, that is, things with a purpose, and empty space by itself has no purpose. Taking this approach, we can say that if there were no matter, there would be no space.
         • Consequently, we can say that matter depends on space in order for it to have a place for it to exist. Space depends on matter in order to have a purpose for its existence.
       • Time is that which measures the change of material beings. If there were no material beings, there could be no time (148-1).
     • “Thus we see the fallacy of conceiving a running stream of time into which God suddenly dropped the universe. Time and the universe began together” (148-2).
   • When the Universe Began
     • We can say there never was a time when the universe did not exist. But this does not mean that the universe has always existed. It is simply another way of saying that before the universe came into existence, there was no time (148-3).
       • Augustine (ca. 400): “Obviously the world was made not in time but with time” (148-3).
     • Some argue that the question about whether or not the universe had a beginning cannot be settled by unaided human reason. But that argument is irrelevant to the actual question, for Revelation tells us definitively that the universe did have a beginning (149-2).
       • “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1).
       • “By His almighty power [God] created together in the beginning of time both creatures, the Spiritual and the Corporeal, namely the Angelic and the earthly and afterwards the human, as it were a common creature, composed of spirit and body” (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; 149-2).
         • Note that in this quote we see that the Church teaches that spirit and matter were created simultaneously at the beginning. God created one universe that consists of both spirit and matter (in that sense human nature, being body and soul, matter and spirit) reflects the whole of creation).
     • Note: “The question whether the universe had a beginning in time, a first moment, does not touch the question whether the universe has a creator. It is not because the universe once was not and now is that we argue that God must have brought it into being. It is because whether the universe has a beginning or not, it does not contain within itself the reason for its own existence” (149-footnote).
   • Genesis and the Creation Account
     • How long ago was the universe created? Genesis does not answer the question.
     • Because Genesis does not answer the question about when the universe began, we know that the question is not important for salvation: “Genesis is concerned with the things that matter vitally in God’s own nature and in His dealings with the human soul, and the ‘date’ of creation is not one of them” (150-2).
       • Some of the things Genesis does teach us in the creation account (150-2):
         • God is personal and distinct from His creation (“contra” pantheism)
         • There is one God (“contra” polytheism)
         • Evil is not a separate creative principle (“contra” dualism)
         • God created sun, stars, sky, and earth (“contra” nature worship)
         • Man (i.e., men and women) is made in the image and likeness of God (unlike the rest of material creation)
         • What God planned for man
         • How man reacted to God’s plan
       • “It would be . . . almost frivolous to think that [when the universe was created] matters very much in comparison with the things that Genesis does tell us” (150-2).
     • The first chapter of Genesis gives us the creation account. “The next two chapters read as if they were born of their writer’s meditation on the contrast between the world as it is and any world God could possibly have [created]” (150-4).
       • The writer contrasts the world in which the highest material creatures must die with a world in which there would have been no death (151-1).
       • He contrasts the all-pure God with man who finds “purity impossible to preserve [and] sin impossible to avoid” (151-1).
       • He sees the two problems as being related, death as the result of sin (151-1).
       • The writer of Genesis knew the essence of the story he told but may not have known the details. He cast the truths of that story in figurative language that would be meaningful to those who would hear the story (151-3).
       • The events he describes really happened, though probably not in a strict literal sense. If the events did not happen, “sin and death are not accounted for, nor is the breach between man and God,” and these are the two things that concern all of the rest of Scripture. (151-3)
   • Excursus: The Universe Began with a Bang
     • Science appears to have an answer to the question of when the universe began. Up until the mid-20th century, the universally held view of the universe was that it was a “steady state” system. This was the prevailing theory when Sheed wrote “Theology and Sanity.” As mentioned in the notes for the introduction to this chapter, the ancient philosopher Plotinus (d. 270 AD) believed that the universe was a necessary emanation from the divine nature in the way that light is a necessary emanation from the sun; thus, it was “eternal,” that is, ever-present, in his view. This was essentially the view of the universe up until the mid-20th century when astronomers began to collect evidence that the universe was expanding, and the “Big Bang” theory was proposed as model for the universe.
     • The Big Bang theory was almost universally rejected by astronomers and physicists when it was proposed by a Belgian priest-astronomer, Georges Lemaitre, in the late 1920’s (by 1930, the theory had become widely known). For example, Albert Einstein said of the theory: “This circumstance [of an expanding Universe] irritates me . . . to admit such possibilities seems senseless.” Others held similar views: “‘[Arthur] Eddington [an English astronomer] wrote in 1931, ‘I have no axe to grind in this discussion,’ but ‘the notion of a beginning is repugnant to me. . . . I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang . . . the expanding Universe is preposterous . . . incredible . . . it leaves me cold.” The German chemist, Walter Nernst, wrote, ‘To deny the infinite duration of time would be to betray the very foundations of science’ . . . And Allan Sandage . . . who established the uniformity of the expansion of the Universe out to nearly ten billion light years, said, ‘It is such a strange conclusion . . . it cannot really be true’” (Jastrow, “God and the Astronomers,” pp. 28, 112-113).
     • In the late 1960’s, two Bell Labs engineers accidentally discovered what became the nail in the coffin for the Steady State theory of the universe when they observed what has become known as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The CMBR is essentially evidence of the heat that was generated by an explosion that took place in a microscopically sized point in space approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Everything that exists in the universe today was “squeezed” into that tiny space (or came forth in the short burst of a stream) in the first moment of the universe’s existence.