Premise one of the kalam cosmological argument (KCA) states that everything which begins to exist has a cause. It goes on to reason that since the universe began to exist, it too requires a cause. Given the properties required of such a cause, the KCA is a powerful argument for a personal creator God.
To avoid the conclusion of the argument many new atheist-types take exception with the causal principle embodied in premise 1. Quantum physics, they say, has shown that there can be effects without causes. And if quantum events do not need causes, then perhaps the universe doesn’t either.
A perfect example of using quantum mechanics to discredit the universality of the causal principle is George Mason University physicist, Robert Oerter:
[O]ver the last hundred years, physicists have discovered systems that change from one state to another without any apparent physical “trigger.” These systems are described by quantum mechanics.
The simplest such system is the hydrogen atom. It’s just an electron bound to a proton. Two particles – that’s about as simple as you can get. According to QM, the electron can occupy one of a discrete set of energy levels. The electron can be excited to a higher energy level by absorbing a photon…
When the electron drops from a higher energy level to a lower level, it emits a photon: a quantum of light…
Quantum mechanics describes this process beautifully, but it only predicts the average time the electron will stay in the higher energy level. It doesn’t give any clue as to the specific time the electron will drop to the lower level. More precisely, the transition rate (the probability of a transition per unit time) is constant: it doesn’t matter how long it has been since the atom was excited, the transition rate stays the same…
When you first encounter this, you can’t quite wrap your brain around it. Surely there must be some internal mechanism, some kind of clock, that ticks along and finally “goes off,” causing the transition!
But no such mechanism has ever been found. QM has had an unexcelled record of accurate predictions, without any need for such a mechanism…
Despite the fact that science could never, in principle, demonstrate that something is uncaused, what are we to make of this claim? Edward Feser responds to Oerter by noting that
[N]one of this is even a prima facie counterexample to the principle of causality. From:
1. QM describes the transition of the electron without making reference to a cause.
it simply does not follow that:
2. QM shows that the transition of the electron has no cause.
Such an inference would be no better than:
3. Kepler’s laws describe the orbits of the planets without making reference to any cause of those orbits, so
4. Kepler’s laws show that the orbits of the planets have no cause.
Even if for some reason you think that the orbits have no cause, Kepler’s laws give you no reason to doubt that they have one. And even if you think the transition of the electron has no cause, QM gives you no reason to doubt that it does.[1]
Quntum mechanics merely describe what takes place at the quantum level. It makes no reference to causes, but that does not imply that there are no causal entities involved.
Feser hypothesizes that perhaps Oerter understands the law of causality to refer to some sort of deterministic cause, and since quantum mechanics are supposedly indeterministic (a disputed interpretation), the law of causality could not apply. Feser notes that “[t]he principle of causality doesn’t require that. It requires only that a potency be actualized by something already actual; whether that something, whatever it is, actualizes potencies according some sort of pattern –deterministic or otherwise — is another matter altogether.”
The fact of the matter is that quantum mechanics has not identified causeless effects or invalidated the causal principle. For any event to occur it must first have the potential to occur, and then have that potential actualized. If that potential is actualized, it “must be actualized by something already actual,”[2] and that something is what we identify as the cause.
[1]Edward Feser, “Oerter on Universals and Causality”; available from http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/05/oerter-on-universals-and-causality.html; Internet; accessed 21 May 2012.[2]Edward Feser, “Oerter contra the principle of causality”; available from http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/05/oerter-contra-principle-of-causality.html; Internet; accessed 21 May 2012.
Thinking to Believe 
May 22, 2012 at 2:40 pm
The claim that everything has a cause appears untrue, thanks to QM. The burden is on those claiming that all things have a cause to prove otherwise.
LikeLike
May 22, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Arthur, why do you keep doing this? Read both of Feser’s articles that Jason linked to and THEN come back and let us know if you can formulate an intelligent reply.
LikeLike
May 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm
In fact, Arthur, why don’t you, for once, try to intelligently engage Jason’s post?
LikeLike
May 22, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Arthur,
Feser’s point is that causation is a metaphysical principle. It’s truth or falsity is something that can only be demonstrated philosophically, not empirically. And as for QM, it only describes behavior. Just because it can describe the behavior without reference to causes does not mean that there are no causes anymore than the fact that I can explain how the English language works without reference to the history of the language would imply that there was no history to the English language.
As for who owns the burden, I couldn’t disagree more. The causal principle is so basic, so intuitive, and so universal to human experience that the burden is on anyone who would deny it, or claim to have found an X for which the causal principle does not apply. And as I wrote elsewhere, it is impossible to demonstrate the absence of a cause empirically. Since QM is an empirical discipline, it cannot possibly demonstrate that quantum events are uncaued.
Jason
LikeLike
May 26, 2012 at 1:21 am
There are of course many arguments for the existence of God based on the inadequacies of science(inability to explain the origin of existence), however this has to mark the first time I’ve seen an argument that argues against God based on the inadequacies of science(inability to explain why particles act the way they do).
Imagine the stereotypical caveman. The caveman is wearing a leaf skirt and a mammoth tooth necklace, wielding a large bludgeon. This caveman is gazing up at a lightning storm. To this caveman lightning strikes seem random and uncaused. The caveman would either assume that lightning strikes are random and uncaused or the caveman would invent a cause and a pattern based on pure speculation.
I would expect better of today’s scientists, however it would seem that my expectations have not been met. This scientist observes an event, is unable to determine a cause and instead of labeling the phenomenon “needs more research”, the scientist simply says “this phenomenon has no cause”.
LikeLike
June 9, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Sorry, causality necessarily depends on the existence of spacetime. There can be no principle of causality without the existence of spacetime. Until the creation of the universe time did not exist. So any argument of how the universe was created that is based on the principle causality is necessary is assuming a condition that is known not to exist.
Here is a discussion of spacetime and how its structure generates causality.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=368
There are other problems with the assumption of causality in quantum mechanics, however interpretation of these vary. The requirement of the existence of spacetime to enable causality is however fundamental.
LikeLike
June 12, 2012 at 12:09 pm
HI, otbricki. Please see Jason’s Stephen Hawking: God Could not Create the Universe Because There Was No Time for Him to Do So. Jason’s analysis is pretty stock with respect to the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). You need to engage his arguments in order to sustain your objection.
That said, I favor the Thomistic Cosmological Argument (TCA) and would defend the principle of causality (PC) a little differently than Jason. I won’t get into that now unless the dialog veers into that direction (which wouldn’t take much effort).
Regards.
LikeLike
July 8, 2012 at 1:18 am
otbricki, saying something forcefully doesn’t make it true. What is your argument for your claim?
And see the link Scalia posted. It will explain why it is a mistake to think that causality is dependent on space or time.
Jason
LikeLike
July 8, 2012 at 1:19 am
otbricki, saying something forcefully doesn’t make it true. What is your argument for your claim?
And see the link Scalia posted. It will explain why it is a mistake to think that causality is dependent on space or time.
Jason
LikeLike
October 22, 2012 at 1:02 am
Consider a cause external to manifest reality.
LikeLike
December 1, 2012 at 9:35 am
Scalia –
Jason’s argument against causality requiring passage of time is completely at variance to the well established principles of Einstein’s relativity. If causal and effect could be simultaneous we would be living in a VERY different universe.
Empirically it is a completely unsustainable argument; the observed structure of the universe simply does not permit it.
LikeLike
December 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm
otbricki,
Relativity only applies to the physical realm. We are discussing the “time before” the physical realm existed, in which case relativity doesn’t apply.
LikeLike
February 4, 2013 at 11:58 pm
Jason, if relativity doesn’t apply, then what does?
Is anything (logically possible) allowed?
Are you simply sketching out a possibility (one among many no doubt)?
How would you know whether your ponderings are more or less likely to reflect reality than others?
LikeLike
February 5, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Havok,
Who said relativity doesn’t apply, and what exactly do you mean by “doesn’t apply”? Doesn’t apply to what?
Is anything allowed in/for what?
I am showing that QM does not invalidate the causal principle as so many atheists like to claim.
What ponderings do you have in mind?
Jason
LikeLike
February 5, 2013 at 3:06 pm
Jason, I was responding to your previous comment, when you said relativity doesn’t apply (in response to otbricki).
You said relativity doesn’t apply to your speculations, so I was asking what does, is anything logically possible allowed to be thought, and how would you gauge whether one claim was more probable than another claim.
LikeLike
February 5, 2013 at 3:44 pm
Havok,
Oh, I see. My point was that QM only apply once physical reality comes into being (and by physical reality, I don’t mean just matter, which is only one form of physical reality). So even if it was true that QM demonstrated the reality of random events, or uncaused events, it has no bearing to the question of how physical reality came into being because we are talking about a “time” before quantum entities existed.
The principle of causation requires that a potency (material cause) be actualized (effective cause) by something already actual. Something cannot come into being from absolutely nothing at all. Potentials cannot actualize themselves. It gets even worse for atheists because in the case of the coming into being of physical reality, not only do they have no actualizer, but they have no potential. Before physical reality there was absolute nothingness. Nothingness has no properties, and thus no potential for anything. So with no potential and no actualizer, how did physical reality come into being? It’s absurd! As William Lane Craig has said, it’s worse than magic because at least in the case of magic a magician pulls the rabbit out of a hat. But for the atheist, not only is there no rabbit to begin with, but no hat and no magician to do the pulling-out-of.
But it’s not absurd to believe that a necessary and all-powerful being willed (effective cause) for physical reality to come into being from nothing at all (no material cause).
Jason
LikeLike
February 5, 2013 at 4:06 pm
The principle of causation requires that a potency (material cause) be actualized (effective cause) by something already actual.
There are many “theories” of causation in philosophy.I don’t buy into the Thomistic “4 causes” stuff (or thomism in general), which is what you seem to be referring to here. Causation under Thomism just seems to me to be confused.
But we’ll see how we go -)
Something cannot come into being from absolutely nothing at all.
I’ll accept that for the moment, but we should note that if we have a philosophical nothing, then there are no rules preventing something from happening, surely.
Potentials cannot actualize themselves.
There also would need to be something already existing which has that potential, correct?
It gets even worse for atheists because in the case of the coming into being of physical reality, not only do they have no actualizer, but they have no potential.
Physical reality could be, for all we know, eternal, in the same way God is often thought to be, and therefore need no actualizer.
Before physical reality there was absolute nothingness.
There being nothingness is not supported by current physics. We our visible universe was small hot and dense some 14 billion years ago. Prior to that our models break down.
Nothingness has no properties, and thus no potential for anything.
If nothing has no properties, then there seems to be nothing stopping it from becoming something. Saying it has no potential seems to be adding some kind of property to the nothingness.
As William Lane Craig has said, it’s worse than magic because at least in the case of magic a magician pulls the rabbit out of a hat. But for the atheist, not only is there no rabbit to begin with, but no hat and no magician to do the pulling-out-of.
I’ll get my cosmology from physicists rather than Bill Craig, thanks 🙂
Currently we don’t know if or when “everything” began. We know our universe was in a hot dense state in the past, and that’s about it. Craig loves to trot out the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem to “prove” that the universe cannot be past eternal, but there are various models which that theorem doesn’t cover. The theorem is also classical, and would need to be quantised (requiring no doubt a quantum theory of gravity) before we should go about applying it as an absolute proof.
So, even assuming you’re right about the above, what sorts of rules apply to what you’re trying to describe? How do you know that the principle of causality holds without space-time when all of your examples involve space-time?
If there was truly nothing other than your god, then it seems that this nothing had the potential to become the universe, which would make it not nothing, by your own reasoning, would it not?
LikeLike
May 9, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Havok,
I do subscribe to an Aristotelian (Thomas borrowed from him) conception of causation. I would be interested to see why you would object to something so basic as this, and how your basis undermines my point that something can only come to be if (1) the potential for its existence is latent within something that existed prior to it, and (2) if something outside of it brings it into being. I don’t see how either can be denied. If something is not even possible, how can it ever become actual? And if you deny (2), then you have to claim that something can cause itself to exist, which is absurd.
You said that you’ll accept the notion that “Something cannot come into being from absolutely nothing at all,” but “only for the moment” because “if we have a philosophical nothing, then there are no rules preventing something from happening.” What you give away with one hand, you take back with the other. That’s just another way of saying that something can come into being from nothing. Of course there are no rules, because nothing is nothing. It has no properties, and there are no rules governing it because there is nothing to govern. It’s the absence of being. The problem for the atheist is trying to explain how being can come from non-being. You can’t squeeze water from a turnip, and you can’t get something from nothing. Imagine a box in which everything is sucked out of it, resulting in a true vacuum (no matter, no fields, etc). No matter how long you wait, nothing will ever come into being in the box because there is no potential for activity. But it’s even worse in the case of the universe, because in the case of the universe it did not come from empty space. There wasn’t even space prior to the origin of the universe.
As for potentials, right, for some Y to come into being there must exist some X before it that contains the potential for bringing Y into existence.
I wrote, “It gets even worse for atheists because in the case of the coming into being of physical reality, not only do they have no actualizer, but they have no potential,” to which you responded, “Physical reality could be, for all we know, eternal, in the same way God is often thought to be, and therefore need no actualizer.” A couple of points. First, it’s not as if we don’t know. As Alexander Vilenkin recently noted, ALL of the available evidence points to an absolute beginning of physical reality. So one cannot appeal to science in support of a past-eternal universe/multiverse. And philosophy is of no help either, because it is logically impossible to create an infinity of anything by successively adding one thing to another, which is how the past is created (by adding one moment of time to another). And as William Lane Craig argues, its even impossible for the infinite to be instantiated in reality, even if it was formed in one whole swoop.
Second, even if the universe was eternal, you still cannot avoid the need for an actualizer because unlike God, the universe is a contingent being. All contingent beings require an explanation for their existence in a source outside of themselves. See https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/contingency-argument-for-gods-existence/
But you say “There being nothingness is not supported by current physics. We our visible universe was small hot and dense some 14 billion years ago. Prior to that our models break down.” While it’s true that the Big Bang model cannot extrapolate prior to the singularity, it’s not true of cosmology in general. Cosmologists Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin have demonstrated via mathematical proofs that on any model of the universe (you claim otherwise, but you’ll have to prove that to me because that is the beauty of their proof – it applies to all models), including multiverse models, there must be an absolute beginning to physical reality. They write, “A physically reasonable spacetime that is eternally inflating to the future must possess an initial singularity…. The fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before.” And again, a “universe…in a state of eternal inflation without a beginning…is in fact not possible in future-eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions.” Vilenkin said in another place, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”
You write, “If nothing has no properties, then there seems to be nothing stopping it from becoming something. Saying it has no potential seems to be adding some kind of property to the nothingness.” You are making the mistake of reifying words. To say that nothingness HAS no properties is not to describe a property of nothingness, but an affirmation that nothingness lacks any and all properties. And to say that if it lacks any properties that this makes it possible for it to become something also makes the mistake of reification, because nothing cannot become anything since that presupposes a transformation of nothingness into something. Or it conceives of nothingness as a state of affairs, which it is not either. And surely, not having any properties does not make it possible for being to “emerge.” It’s what makes it impossible. Saying otherwise is like saying that since flowers have no properties of metal, then there is nothing stopping flowers from becoming a metal car.
As for Bill Craig, he’s not referring to cosmology, but to metaphysics. And if you or any other scientist thinks that science can be done in a vacuum apart from metaphysics, you/they are deluded. Indeed, many cosmological models today are not based on empirical science, but metaphysical speculations written in mathematical form.
You wrote, “If there was truly nothing other than your god, then it seems that this nothing had the potential to become the universe, which would make it not nothing, by your own reasoning, would it not?” But God is not nothing. He is something, so divine creation is getting something from something.
Jason
LikeLike
May 9, 2013 at 3:56 pm
If something is not even possible, how can it ever become actual?
If we have nothingness, then what is to prevent anything happening?
Imagine a box in which everything is sucked out of it, resulting in a true vacuum (no matter, no fields, etc). No matter how long you wait, nothing will ever come into being in the box because there is no potential for activity.
That would be true in your example, but we’re not talking about a true vacuum, we’re talking about nothing at all. To even apply the claim that something cannot come from nothing, to such an absolute nothingness as we’re talking about, is to give it properties, and make it a something.
First, it’s not as if we don’t know. As Alexander Vilenkin recently noted, ALL of the available evidence points to an absolute beginning of physical reality.
The Borde-Guth-Vollenkin theorem is interesting, but it is far from the final word.
For starters, there are configurations of possible reality which are not covered by it, and which the actual universe could well be.
Secondly, it is entirely classical. We’d need a quantized version of the theorem, something we currently lack.
Second, even if the universe was eternal, you still cannot avoid the need for an actualizer because unlike God, the universe is a contingent being.
This is playing word games. The universe could be a contingent brute fact. Or it could be a necessary being.
Also, apart from simply asserting it to be the case, we can just as easily claim that God is contingent (and I believe that is the position of Swinburne).
Cosmologists Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin have demonstrated via mathematical proofs that on any model of the universe (you claim otherwise, but you’ll have to prove that to me because that is the beauty of their proof – it applies to all models), including multiverse models, there must be an absolute beginning to physical reality.
This is simply false – it does not apply to all models.
Saying otherwise is like saying that since flowers have no properties of metal, then there is nothing stopping flowers from becoming a metal car.
That’s a bad analogy. We have laws of physics preventing flowers from becoming cars.
What rules/laws/regularities can you appeal to with regards to nothingness?
The true nothingness you are arguing has no such laws or regularities, and therefore I see no way in which to make the claims you are making concerning it.
LikeLike
October 23, 2013 at 3:06 pm
If we have nothingness, then what is to prevent anything happening?
What prevents it is the absence of any potential.
That would be true in your example, but we’re not talking about a true vacuum, we’re talking about nothing at all. To even apply the claim that something cannot come from nothing, to such an absolute nothingness as we’re talking about, is to give it properties, and make it a something.
If nothing would ever come into being in a true vacuum in which there is at least space, then how much more would that be the case with true nothingness in which there is no potential at all?
No, to say something cannot come from nothing is not to given nothing properties, and hence make it something. You are making the mistake of reifying language. There are limits to language, particularly when trying to talk about nothingness. But nothing we say about nothingness in any way has ontological significance, such that our speech turns nothing into something. When we talk about “nothing,” we mean “not anything” or the “absence of being.”
The Borde-Guth-Vollenkin theorem is interesting, but it is far from the final word.
For starters, there are configurations of possible reality which are not covered by it, and which the actual universe could well be.
Secondly, it is entirely classical. We’d need a quantized version of the theorem, something we currently lack.
I wasn’t just talking about the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. I am talking about all of the empirical evidence.
Also, you are wrong about the BGV only applying to the classical model, and no longer having application if a quantum gravity model is constructed. As Vilenkin wrote, “A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible.” (Many Worlds in One, 175.)
How about you name for me the realities not covered by it. And since I know what you will say (because I have two examples of correspondence with Vilenkin in which he discusses this), also explain why you would disagree that those scenarios are physically implausible to such an extent that they can be virtually ruled out.
This is playing word games. The universe could be a contingent brute fact. Or it could be a necessary being.
Also, apart from simply asserting it to be the case, we can just as easily claim that God is contingent (and I believe that is the position of Swinburne).
Distinguishing between contingent and necessary beings is hardly a word game. It’s making an extremely important metaphysical distinction. Contingent beings require causes for their existence, and those causes must be external to the entity in question. Necessary beings do not require causes for their existence. This is very relevant to the origin of the universe since the universe is a contingent being. Thinking that a contingent being can be a brute fact is like thinking your existence is a brute fact. It’s absurd. As for thinking the universe is a necessary being, you can’t just propose the claim. You would have to justify how the properties of the universe would warrant thinking of the universe as a necessary being. You would have to show why the universe could not have been composed of different materials, and why it has to have precisely the amount of matter and energy it does – not a quark more or less. Good luck with that. And good luck finding any atheist philosophers or scientists who are willing to say the universe is necessary.
That’s a bad analogy. We have laws of physics preventing flowers from becoming cars.
What rules/laws/regularities can you appeal to with regards to nothingness?
The true nothingness you are arguing has no such laws or regularities, and therefore I see no way in which to make the claims you are making concerning it.
There are no rules/laws/regularities for nothingness because nothingness has no properties. And that is why you’ll never get something from nothing.
Jason
LikeLike
October 23, 2013 at 3:35 pm
What prevents it is the absence of any potential.
An absence of potential is something. You no longer seem to be speaking about absolute nothing.
When we talk about “nothing,” we mean “not anything” or the “absence of being.”
An absence of being doesn’t sound like it’s a potential state of being – it doesn’t seem to be a possible state of affairs.
Also, you are wrong about the BGV only applying to the classical model, and no longer having application if a quantum gravity model is constructed.
Also from Villenkin (from here):
“The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning assumes a classical spacetime, in which the notions of time and causality can be defined. On very small time and length scales, quantum fluctuations in the structure of spacetime could be so large that these classical concepts become totally inapplicable. Then we do not really have a language to describe what is happening, because all our physics concepts are deeply rooted in the concepts of space and time. This is what I mean when I say that we do not even know what the right questions are.”
This is very relevant to the origin of the universe since the universe is a contingent being.
This is far from known. Are you talking about there being anything, or simply to the comoving patch which resulted from the big bang event?
Thinking that a contingent being can be a brute fact is like thinking your existence is a brute fact. It’s absurd.
This assumes the principle of sufficient reason, and a denial of the existence of brute facts. These are still debated.
You would have to show why the universe could not have been composed of different materials, and why it has to have precisely the amount of matter and energy it does – not a quark more or less
You’re talking about properties that might well be contingent IN the universe, while the existence OF the universe remains necessary. Since the sum total of energy in the universe looks to be around 0, I’m not sure there’s much explanation needed on that front.
The sort of explanation you request here would also be required of your claim that God is a necessary being – good luck with that 🙂
There are no rules/laws/regularities for nothingness because nothingness has no properties. And that is why you’ll never get something from nothing.
The rule you appeal to, stating that you’ll never get something from nothing, would not exist if nothing existed.
It doesn’t seem any more or less arbitrary to say anything could come from nothing.
LikeLike
November 13, 2013 at 5:02 pm
“An absence of potential is something. You no longer seem to be speaking about absolute nothing.”
Seriously? How is the absence of something, something? You seem to be reifying the word “absence” to make it into a something. That is an abuse of language.
An absence of being doesn’t sound like it’s a potential state of being – it doesn’t seem to be a possible state of affairs.
Of course “absence of being” is not a potential state of being. It’s the utter lack of being.
Also from Villenkin (from here):
“The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning assumes a classical spacetime, in which the notions of time and causality can be defined. On very small time and length scales, quantum fluctuations in the structure of spacetime could be so large that these classical concepts become totally inapplicable. Then we do not really have a language to describe what is happening, because all our physics concepts are deeply rooted in the concepts of space and time. This is what I mean when I say that we do not even know what the right questions are.”
I like how you ignore the point Vilenkin makes in the quote I provided, and just go on to give a different quote. Do you think Vilenkin is contradicting himself? No, he’s not, and that would be evident if you did not engage in selective quoting. Vilenkin went on to say, “But if the fluctuations are not so wild as to invalidate classical spacetime, the BGV theorem is immune to any possible modifications of Einstein’s equations which may be caused by quantum effects”? Two points: 1) He clearly does not think that the fluctuations are that wild; 2) This makes it clear that the truth of the BGV theorem is not contingent on the lack of a quantum gravity model, but on the type of quantum gravity model proposed. If it is one that does not involve time and causation, then the BGV theorem no longer applies. But if it does involve time and causation, then the BGV theorem still holds.
It’s worth quoting William Lane Craig’s comments in response to Vilenkin’s words: “The issue is not quantum gravity but the reality of time and causation. This raises very fundamental questions about the nature of time, whether time is identical to the operationally defined quantities in physics or whether those quantities are, as I maintain, but measures of time, which exists independently of them. So long as the universe is expanding over time in the quantum gravity regime, the BGV theorem holds. Indeed, it is questionable whether it is even coherent to speak of classical spacetime’s “emerging” from a timeless condition, since that state cannot be said to be before or earlier than classical spacetime. This suggests that any such model should be given at best an instrumentalist or anti-realist interpretation.”
This is far from known. Are you talking about there being anything, or simply to the comoving patch which resulted from the big bang event?
When I wrote, “This is very relevant to the origin of the universe since the universe is a contingent being,” I am simply making a claim about the kind of being that the physical world is. It is not the kind of being that must exist of a logical or metaphysical necessity. Physical reality is contingent. It could have been different (e.g. having one less quark), and for it to exist, it requires a cause outside of itself.
This assumes the principle of sufficient reason, and a denial of the existence of brute facts. These are still debated.
Yes, I am assuming the principle of sufficient reason is true, as do most reasonable people. We have an intuition that things do not exist inexplicably. Indeed, this is the heart of science. It’s only more than convenient to chuck this most basic metaphysical intuition when it comes to the origin of physical reality. Doesn’t it seem a wee-bit suspicious that the one contingent being you don’t see a need to explain is the one contingent fact that your worldview seems incapable of explaining (since it is impossible to ascribe a naturalistic cause to the first naturalistic effect), and the one thing that would imply the existence of a Being you do not want to acknowledge as existing?
What I said above applies whether the universe is eternal or temporal, but given the fact that all of the empirical evidence points to a temporal beginning of our universe, the point is reinforced. Clearly, something that began to exist cannot be metaphysically necessary since at one point it did not exist. It’s kind of hard to claim a thing’s existence is necessary when, at one time, it did not exist! Anything that has a beginning is contingent, and anything that is contingent must be caused by some external reality.
You’re talking about properties that might well be contingent IN the universe, while the existence OF the universe remains necessary. Since the sum total of energy in the universe looks to be around 0, I’m not sure there’s much explanation needed on that front. The sort of explanation you request here would also be required of your claim that God is a necessary being – good luck with that.
This won’t work because the universe is simply a collection of contingent beings. If each individual contingent beings needs an explanation, then surely the whole collection does as well. And it makes no sense to think that while each part of the universe is contingent, somehow the sum total is not. Besides, how are you simply not begging the question in favor of atheism? What is your evidence or reasons for thinking that the universe is necessary?
You seem to be “arguing” what Bede Rundell argues, which is that it’s necessary that something exists, but not that something in particular must exist necessarily. In other words, necessarily some contingent being exists, but no necessary being exists. Different contingent beings can exist in different worlds. This won’t work for two reasons. First, why should we think that contingent beings must exist in every possible world. What causes them if there is no metaphysically necessary being? Secondly, as Alexander Pruss has argued, this argument leads to the conclusion that if you name an infinite number of non-existent entities minus X, that entails that X must exist. But it makes no sense to think a conjunction of claims about the nonexistence of various things can possibly entail that X exists. For example, the conjunction of claims that there are no flying pigs, centaurs, poka-dotted zebras, ad infinitum could not possibly entail the existence of George Bush (assuming he was the only thing left not named, and not found to be non-existent). And yet if you are right, if it is necessary that a contingent being exists, and none of the other one’s do, then the only contingent thing left (not listed) necessarily must exist.
As for your claim about that there’s really not anything to explain since the total energy of the universe is near zero will not hold up. First, we’re not sure if it is actually zero, and right now we cannot say that it is. We can only say “near zero,” which would mean there is still something to explain, even given your presuppositions. But even if it were zero, you still have to explain the origin of the gravity and mass to begin with. As Craig writes, “The argument that nothing exists is based on a bookkeeping trick: if the positive energy of the universe and the negative energy of the universe exactly balance out, then the net energy of the universe is zero; therefore, nothing exists! This is like saying that if you go on a round trip journey in which the return leg retraces the outbound leg, then your net motion is zero; therefore you haven’t gone anywhere! … In the case of the universe, you still need a cause to explain the origin of the positive and the negative energy in the first place, even if when summed together their net balance is zero.”
You wrote, “The sort of explanation you request here would also be required of your claim that God is a necessary being – good luck with that.” Wrong. Contingent beings have causes, while necessary beings do not. And there is a difference between explaining why something exists and explaining what caused something to exist. God’s existence does have an explanation, but not a cause, whereas the universe needs both a cause and an explanation.
The rule you appeal to, stating that you’ll never get something from nothing, would not exist if nothing existed. It doesn’t seem any more or less arbitrary to say anything could come from nothing.
Of course it wouldn’t exist, but that has nothing to do with the point. The point is that if there was truly nothing, there could never become something because something is the absence of all being, and even the potential for being. Only things that exist have potentiality. Nothing has no potentiality. It’s not the principle that something only comes from nothing that determines this, but the nature of nothingness in itself.
Jason
LikeLike
November 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm
You seem to be reifying the word “absence” to make it into a something.
Absolute absence of being seems difficult to grasp and talk about, at least to me.
Two points: 1) He clearly does not think that the fluctuations are that wild;
I understand that. I wasn’t trying to misrepresent Villenkin’s position – apologies if you thought I was.
2) This makes it clear that the truth of the BGV theorem is not contingent on the lack of a quantum gravity model, but on the type of quantum gravity model proposed.
Which I completely agree with.
If it is one that does not involve time and causation, then the BGV theorem no longer applies. But if it does involve time and causation, then the BGV theorem still holds.
I would then point out we don’t know what model of quantum gravity is going to succeed.
We also don’t know which model of the universe will succeed.
So on at least 2 points we simply don’t know whether the BGVT applies to the real world or not.
It’s worth quoting William Lane Craig’s comments in response to Vilenkin’s words:
WLC has a view of time which is at odds with the majority of cosmologists, as far as I understand it. WLC is an A-theorist, while quite a lot of physicists/cosmologists are B-theorists. WLC’s position finds little support from Relativity (he’s written books trying to reformulate relativity). He relies upon a “metaphysical time” which is separate to time as we can measure.
I am simply making a claim about the kind of being that the physical world is. It is not the kind of being that must exist of a logical or metaphysical necessity.
I don’t think this has been established.
Physical reality is contingent. It could have been different (e.g. having one less quark), and for it to exist, it requires a cause outside of itself.
Simply because the universe has contingent properties does not mean that the universe is completely contingent.
We have an intuition that things do not exist inexplicably
We have quite a few intuitions that are mistaken.
I’m not going to argue this point, since I’m generally agnostic concerning the PSR – it seems to be a useful “rule of thumb” type of thing, but I’m not sure it’s necessarily true.
Doesn’t it seem a wee-bit suspicious that the one contingent being you don’t see a need to explain is the one contingent fact that your worldview seems incapable of explaining
I don’t think I’ve said that.
(since it is impossible to ascribe a naturalistic cause to the first naturalistic effect),
I’m not convinced there was a first cause, so I don’t see this as necessarily defeating Naturalism.
I’d also note that the claimed necessity of “God” hasn’t been shown, since there is continuing debate concerning ontological arguments of the sort required to establish this.
and the one thing that would imply the existence of a Being you do not want to acknowledge as existing?
If there were good reasons to accept it, I would accept the existence of a first cause. I don’t see how you would get from that to the God of Christianity, however, without assuming a whole lot of other things not shown by the bare arguments for a first cause.
but given the fact that all of the empirical evidence points to a temporal beginning of our universe, the point is reinforced.
A temporal beginning to our “visible universe” or “comoving patch” 🙂
Clearly, something that began to exist cannot be metaphysically necessary since at one point it did not exist.
A similar argument could be levelled at various conceptions of God, since God began to exist in time (at least as far as WLC is concerned).
Also, the evidence we have concerning the big bang, even if we accept the BGVT, doesn’t indicate that the universe as a whole didn’t exist and then did exist. Rather it seems that what is indicated is that time began (time as operationally measured) in our comoving patch (or whatever we find the BGVT applies to).
This won’t work because the universe is simply a collection of contingent beings.
The universe “contains” a collection of contingent being or “has” a collection of contingent properties.
That doesn’t mean the universe itself is continent – I believe that’s the fallacy of composition
If each individual contingent beings needs an explanation, then surely the whole collection does as well.
Similarly to claims concerning God, the explanation for the universe might simply be found in it’s nature.
Or perhaps the PSR isn’t true.
What causes them if there is no metaphysically necessary being?
If Rundell does argue perhaps he doesn’t accept the PSR.
Or perhaps the “cause” is the principle that necessarily a contingent being exists.
I don’t quite understand your argument about a proposition concerning the non-existence of contingent being entailing the existence of a non-listed contingent being – do you have a link?
First, we’re not sure if it is actually zero, and right now we cannot say that it is.
I find it strange that you’re happy to accept this, but want to press the BGVT as if it’s being true in the universe was settled.
We can only say “near zero,” which would mean there is still something to explain, even given your presuppositions.
Near or possibly zero meaning there may or may not be something to explain 🙂
But even if it were zero, you still have to explain the origin of the gravity and mass to begin with.
Perhaps they’re necessary properties of the universe as a whole (or at least, the more general “laws” from which our specific physics emerge.
God’s existence does have an explanation, but not a cause, whereas the universe needs both a cause and an explanation.
And the explanation of God’s existence is semantics, and could equally apply to the universe as a whole (with an explanation being required for our comoving patch).
It’s not the principle that something only comes from nothing that determines this, but the nature of nothingness in itself.
I find discussion of absolute nothingness to be fraught with confusion. I would think that nothingness, as in the complete absence of being, doesn’t have a nature either, since that would be something.
I think the best we can claim with any confidence is that nothingness of this sort is perhaps logically or metaphysically impossible (whether we opt for necessary being(s), or the necessity of contingent being(s)).
LikeLike
November 13, 2013 at 5:44 pm
Clearly, something that began to exist cannot be metaphysically necessary since at one point it did not exist.
I was less than clear in my response to this point.
BVGT if it holds for our universe, indicates that there is a point in the time dimension where we will no longer be able to go further. So I don’t think that the BGVT shows that the universe “began” to exist in quite the sense required of this claim (perhaps it did, but I don’t see that the BGVT will get you there).
LikeLike
November 22, 2013 at 1:40 am
Ok, so now we both agree that the BGV theorem would still hold even for some quantum gravity theories. And given Vilenkin’s comments, he does not think a true quantum gravity model will entail fluctuations so wild that time and space will no longer be involved. If so, then the BGV theorem will hold, and we should conclude that the universe is past finite. Is there a chance that a true model of quantum gravity will need to exclude space and time? Yes, it’s possible, but unlikely. We need to base our conclusions on the evidence we have at present, and what is most likely true, not what could possibly be true, or evidence we may discover in the future. We must take philosophical thought into consideration as well. Just as we would call a scientific attempt to discover square circles an exercise in futility because rational thought makes it clear that square circles are incoherent, and thus cannot exist, likewise, rational thought makes it clear that actual infinities cannot be possibly instantiated in the real world. An eternal universe/multiverse would be an example of an actual infinity, and thus we have good reason to believe that science will never discover evidence for a temporally infinite universe, because such a state of affairs is logically incoherent.
WLC on time – Yes, it’s true that he’s an A theorist, while most scientists are B theorists, at least when it comes to working out their equations. While this conversation cannot examine this debate in more detail, let me just point out that Einstein’s original formulation of relativity did not incorporate a B theory of time, but an A theory of time. So there is no inconsistency with an A theory and relativity. But even on a B theory of time, given the scientific evidence, time is not eternal. While there is never a point in time at which the universe comes into beginning, there is a boundary to time.
You keep acting as if the contingency of the universe is something we can’t be sure of. Tell me what part of the universe is logically or metaphysically necessary in its existence, such that it must exist, and must exist exactly as it does? In contradistinction to things like the laws of logic and mathematical truths, it is logically possible to conceive of a physically empty universe, or no universe at all. How, then, can the universe be necessary?
Fellow atheists do not share your skepticism about the contingency of the universe either, though they would be philosophically inclined to. I recall Craig talking about a meeting among philosophers. An atheist philosopher who was presenting a paper seemed to imply that the universe was metaphysically necessary. Craig asked him whether he meant to imply this, and the man became indignant at the suggestion, saying he would never say such a preposterous thing. The universe’s contingency is so obvious that atheistic philosopher, Thomas Senor, doesn’t dispute whether the universe is contingent, but whether every contingent being requires an explanation of its existence! Chrispen Wright and Bob Hale take the same route. Even science writer, Jim Holt, no friend to theism, writes: “Whether or not the Big Bang truly implies that the universe was created out of nothing by an omnipotent deity in a wholly gratuitous act of love, it does demonstrate that the universe is, as philosophers say, contingent–that is, it need not have existed. Anything that exists by its own nature, that is the cause and ground of its own being, must be eternal and imperishable. The universe is neither of these things.”
Simply because the universe has contingent properties does not mean that the universe is completely contingent.
That’s like saying “just because each part of the elephant has weight does not mean the entire elephant has weight.” As one blogger recently wrote, “Could it be that the contingency of the universe could add up to a whole which is not contingent? No, it cannot. The reason is that being (existing) has the nature that adding up contingent beings (things) can only give us a big pile of contingents. Adding together contingents cannot give us a necessary being. … While adding together lightweight parts can give us a heavy, and adding together small squares can give us a rectangle, it is not true that adding together dependent, contingent things can get anything else than a pile of contingents which need a necessary Being for their existence. Adding together all the contingents in the universe does not give us something more or something necessary; on the contrary, it merely requires a bigger cause.”
We have quite a few intuitions that are mistaken.
Such as? And make sure you give examples of actual logical intuitions. Even if you can list some, I would bet that we have very good reasons to doubt them. But what good reason do we have to doubt the PSR, apart from the fact that it leads us to conclude the existence of a necessary being imbued with properties that resemble God? A desire for God not to exist is not good reason to doubt our intuition (verified repeatedly, without exception) that things which come into being must be caused. After all, when’s the last time you ever worried that a horse might just come into being in the middle of your living room, and defecate on your floor? Never, because you know effects require causes, and something only comes into being from something else. Things do not just pop into existence from nothing, uncaused.
I don’t think I’ve said that.
Perhaps you have not said that the universe does not need an explanation explicitly, but you have said things like “The universe could be a contingent brute fact. Or it could be a necessary being.” If the universe was a brute fact, it would be without an explanation, and if it was a necessary being it would be without a cause. You surely are not insisting that the universe needs an explanation! Indeed, the statement you make, which I address below, flows in the same vein.
I’m not convinced there was a first cause, so I don’t see this as necessarily defeating Naturalism.
So you don’t think effects require causes, then? You think the universe just popped into being out of nothing without cause?
And note, I said nothing about a first cause. I was speaking of the first naturalistic effect. It goes without saying that if that effect is the coming into being of nature, that either there was no cause, or there was a non-naturalistic cause for that effect. You cannot have a natural cause prior to the origin of nature.
I’d also note that the claimed necessity of “God” hasn’t been shown, since there is continuing debate concerning ontological arguments of the sort required to establish this.
The metaphysical necessity of God is not dependent on the success of the ontological argument. The contingency argument also demonstrates the metaphysical necessity of God.
If there were good reasons to accept it, I would accept the existence of a first cause. I don’t see how you would get from that to the God of Christianity, however, without assuming a whole lot of other things not shown by the bare arguments for a first cause.
The First cause argument is only one of many arguments for theism. There are many good, rational arguments for theism. What I have yet to read are good refutations of them. Most rebuttals to these arguments simply appeal to some alternative, unlikely scenario. What they have not done is show that the premises of the arguments are more likely to be false than true.
Of course you don’t get to Christian theism from a first cause argument like the kalam argument, but who says you need one single argument to prove everything? You get to the Christian God by other arguments and evidence.
A temporal beginning to our “visible universe” or “comoving patch”
No. The evidence points to a beginning of all physical reality, whether it be just our universe, or whether there be a multiverse. Vilenkin himself has made this quite clear. He examined all sorts of cosmologies, including those that posit the multiverse, universe cycles, etc., and showed how all of them require a temporal beginning.
A similar argument could be levelled at various conceptions of God, since God began to exist in time (at least as far as WLC is concerned).
Saying God began to exist in a temporal way at creation is not to say that God came into being with creation. It’s only to say that the way God experienced His eternality changed with creation.
Also, the evidence we have concerning the big bang, even if we accept the BGVT, doesn’t indicate that the universe as a whole didn’t exist and then did exist. Rather it seems that what is indicated is that time began (time as operationally measured) in our comoving patch (or whatever we find the BGVT applies to).
I don’t know where you are getting this from. The Standard Model applies to our entire universe, both visible and not visible. Even apart from the Big Bang, entropy makes it clear that physical reality cannot be past eternal. If the universe has always existed, regardless of the state, we would now be in a state of heat death. We are not, hence, the universe is not past eternal.
The universe “contains” a collection of contingent being or “has” a collection of contingent properties. That doesn’t mean the universe itself is continent – I believe that’s the fallacy of composition
I’ve already addressed the fallacy of composition charge earlier, so let me focus on your strange definition of universe. You treat the universe as if it is something in addition to every physical thing in the universe, as though “universe” refers to an empty container that contains all physical objects. That’s incorrect. The universe just is the entire collection of all physical reality. It’s not as if there were only 100 contingent objects in the universe that the universe a distinct object in addition to that 100. No, the universe is simply a way of referring to all 100 contingent objects together. So if all 100 objects that make up the universe are contingent, then the universe is contingent.
Similarly to claims concerning God, the explanation for the universe might simply be found in it’s nature. Or perhaps the PSR isn’t true.
It’s not just a claim about God. There’s an argument for why God is necessary. And to be more precise, it’s not as if we posit a being, God, and then ask whether He is necessary or contingent. Rather, we discover that there must be a necessary being in order to explain the origin of all the contingent beings that exist, and based on the properties required of a necessary being, we identify that necessary being as “God.” The same cannot be said if the universe. It contains the contingent beings that need to be explained, and there is nothing in or about the universe that requires it exist of a metaphysical necessity. Remember what it means to say the universe is metaphysically necessary. It means that it cannot not exist. It means there is only one possible world. It means that it’s logically and metaphysically impossible for the universe to be composed of “chakas” (made up word) instead of quarks. It means the universe must have a specific number of quarks – not a single quark less, and not a single quark more. There is simply no rational basis for affirming this. You need to do more than put forth this idea as possible. You need to show why it is probable. And yet, I’ve given many reasons to conclude the opposite. You need to interact with those reasons, as well as offer some reasons of your own.
I don’t quite understand your argument about a proposition concerning the non-existence of contingent being entailing the existence of a non-listed contingent being – do you have a link?
No, I don’t have a link. The idea he is expressing is that it’s necessary that some contingent being or another exist, but not any specific being. So in every possible world, there must, of metaphysical necessity, be contingent beings. This would imply that if you could show that pink dinosaurs, flying pretzels, dogs, buildings, and every other possible contingent being does not exist except for George Bush, then it is the case that George Bush’s existence is necessary. Of course, this is absurd.
I find it strange that you’re happy to accept this, but want to press the BGVT as if it’s being true in the universe was settled.
I’m not sure why you find this strange. The BGVT is based on solid mathematics and applies across a whole spectrum of cosmologies, whereas our understanding about the balance of negative and positive energy is based on our ability to accurately measure gravity and matter. When your zero energy universe requires that you postulate a form of matter that no one has been able to detect, and claim that this matter makes up the vast majority of the universe, clearly this does not stand on the same grounds as the BGVT. We should be more skeptical of the one versus the other.
Near or possibly zero meaning there may or may not be something to explain.
No, because as I went on to explain, even if it was zero, it doesn’t mean “nothing.” You’ve got two somethings that happen to balance each other out on a ledger. This doesn’t mean there is nothing to explain. You still have to explain the origin of the two somethings that balance each other out. It’s not a free lunch, unless you commit the accountant fallacy.
I find discussion of absolute nothingness to be fraught with confusion. I would think that nothingness, as in the complete absence of being, doesn’t have a nature either, since that would be something.
When I speak of the “nature of nothingness,” I am referring to the nature of the idea of nothing, not to nothingness itself. Clearly, nothingness has no nature. And that is why something could never come from nothing. If there was ever a point in time in which nothing existed, then there would still be nothing now. Obviously something exists, and thus there could never be a point in time when nothing “existed.” Something had to be eternal, and the best science and philosophy make it clear that the universe is not that something. Something transcendent to the universe must be that eternal something.
BVGT if it holds for our universe, indicates that there is a point in the time dimension where we will no longer be able to go further. So I don’t think that the BGVT shows that the universe “began” to exist in quite the sense required of this claim (perhaps it did, but I don’t see that the BGVT will get you there).
I’m not sure what to make of this. What else does it mean to say that some X began to exist than to say that there is a time t1 when it exists, but no earlier time in which it exists? Craig’s definition is helpful here: “All that needs to be true is that the thing exist at time t, and there is no time t* earlier than t when the thing exists. Another way of expressing this is to say that we can know something began if for any measurement of its existence, there are only a finite number of equal measurements prior to it.” Clearly this applies to the universe. It begins to exist.
I’m spending way too much time on this, so I’ll let you have the last word.
Jason
LikeLike
February 27, 2014 at 9:22 am
Dear Jason
Your post was very interesting, In the end all of this is pretty much nonsense and bit of fun debating really. Ultimately the rational view is that of the agnostic and by meaning that I mean one whom does not know whether a God does or does not exist. I doubt there will ever be enough proof to prove either way and proof by logical thought does not work as logic is a human concept which dictates to most of us how we live our lives. It is interesting because there is no right or wrong and other peoples opinions intrigues me. Have fun philosophising!
Herrn Hanson
LikeLike
May 12, 2014 at 12:13 am
Wow! the ignorance here from the atheists is worrying! Their arguments did not base themselves off of any evidence, nor did they have any logical consistency…
Excellent job Jason and others! It was a pleasure to see how you dismantled the opposing arguments so handily, perceptively catching their red herrings and other logical fallacies, and calling them out when they provided no evidence to support their contrary view…
Anyways, Hern, if “human logic is a human concept which dictates to most of us how we live our lives,” then shouldn’t it be used more often than you are entailing? By the way, logic is not simply a human concept without any contingent (to God) link to the reality we live in. Like mathematics, another formal science, these sciences are clearly linked to the universe we live in… The regularities and order of our universe being accessible to logic and mathematics shows that it was designed, and beyond a simple human concept… logic and mathematics are ways we know reality, and if the universe was not designed so, they I would agree, they are simple human concepts, but since this is not the case, I disagree…
“It is interesting because there is no right or wrong and other peoples opinions intrigues me. Have fun philosophising! ”
I also disagree that there is no right and wrong. How are you supposed to know? If you claim there is no right and wrong, you are no longer agnostic, but rather, there is no truth to be agnostic about, and there is nothing to know… You are claiming to know that there is no right and wrong… this is not a neutral stance, and this is not agnosticism. As I just stated, it supposes there is no knowledge period, and nothing knowable. You couldn’t even do science without right and wrong, as validity wouldn’t exist…
LikeLike
May 17, 2014 at 4:42 pm
If so, then the BGV theorem will hold, and we should conclude that the universe is past finite
Why conceed that when there are cosmological models which do not rely upon the quantum fluctuations that large but are still not covered by the BGV?
Why not simply state that we do not know, rather than trying to prematurely come to conclusions?
rational thought makes it clear that actual infinities cannot be possibly instantiated in the real world.
Rational thought makes no such thing clear. The arguments presented to support this claim , esp by WLC, are generally confused, assuming that an actual infinite instantiated in reality ought to conform to finite arithmetic for instance.
An eternal universe/multiverse would be an example of an actual infinity, and thus we have good reason to believe that science will never discover evidence for a temporally infinite universe, because such a state of affairs is logically incoherent.
Without a solid proof that an actual temporal infinity is actually incoherent and/or impossible to instantiate, this statement lacks any real support.
But even on a B theory of time, given the scientific evidence, time is not eternal. While there is never a point in time at which the universe comes into beginning, there is a boundary to time.
A B-theory of time does undermine the argument however – there’s no longer any need to explain how the universe “began” to exist, because on B-theory, it didn’t – it always was. The Kalam fails, and you (and WLC) would need to put your efforts into other arguments.
Tell me what part of the universe is logically or metaphysically necessary in its existence, such that it must exist, and must exist exactly as it does?
You seem to be conflating the parts IN the universe with the universe itself.
The internal structure of the universe could be entirely contingent and yet the existence of the universe itself may well be necessary.
In contradistinction to things like the laws of logic and mathematical truths, it is logically possible to conceive of a physically empty universe, or no universe at all. How, then, can the universe be necessary?
It is possible to conceive of a different God or no God at all. how then can God be necessary?
The laws of logic are axioms for particular logical systems. They’re certainly deniable in part (see the multitude of different logics which exist – there’s no single “logic”).
Math is basically a branch of logic, and the laws of math are axioms as well – see the different axioms used to build up set theory versus Peono Arithmetic.
So the laws of logic are only “necessary” in that they’re assumed to hold for a particular formal system, rather than being proved in that formal system.
The universe’s contingency is so obvious that atheistic philosopher, Thomas Senor, doesn’t dispute whether the universe is contingent, but whether every contingent being requires an explanation of its existence!
Obvious to him I guess. You realise that Theistic philosophers like Swinburne do not hold to a necessary, but rather contingent God?
“Anything that exists by its own nature, that is the cause and ground of its own being, must be eternal and imperishable. The universe is neither of these things.”
What is being referred to here is our comoving patch, and not the universe as it may be. We know our comoving patch traces back to the big bang event going against the thermodynamic arrow of time. This doesn’t mean the universe is contingent any more than the contingency of our comoving patch demonstrates that God, if it existed, is contingent.
No, it cannot. The reason is that being (existing) has the nature that adding up contingent beings (things) can only give us a big pile of contingents.
This is fallacious reasoning(The Fallacy of Composition in fact).
Never, because you know effects require causes, and something only comes into being from something else. Things do not just pop into existence from nothing, uncaused.
Which undermines the argument for God, since everything we have experience with comes from some pre-existing stuff. ON what did God operate to cause the universe?
Perhaps you have not said that the universe does not need an explanation explicitly, but you have said things like “The universe could be a contingent brute fact. Or it could be a necessary being
I’m simply saying that I do not actually know whether the universe, not just our comoving patch, is a brute fact, or necessary.
So you don’t think effects require causes, then? You think the universe just popped into being out of nothing without cause?
Within the universe we see this.
You’re applying this same intuition to something quite drastically different – the universe as a whole. You haven’t argued as to why this leap is remotely legitimate.
You cannot have a natural cause prior to the origin of nature.
True, but it hasn’t been established that Nature has or needs a cause. B-Theory tells us that there is no need for a prior cause. A past eternal universe would have no prior cause either. Both of those are still options on the table.
The metaphysical necessity of God is not dependent on the success of the ontological argument. The contingency argument also demonstrates the metaphysical necessity of God.
At best these arguments show that there is something that is necessary, not that the Christian God (or something like it) is that necessary being.
What I have yet to read are good refutations of them.
That’s strange, because I’ve read quite a few good arguments against the existence of God, and find most of those which purport to show God exists to be pretty poor (though at times interesting and very
Most rebuttals to these arguments simply appeal to some alternative, unlikely scenario.
Many arguments for God rely upon possibility rather than probability.
What they have not done is show that the premises of the arguments are more likely to be false than true.
The same charge can easily be levelled at theistic claims.
What I find interesting is that naturalistic arguments rely upon only what we have good reason to suppose exists due to rational investigation of the world. Theistic arguments rely upon things which are not actually in evidence – the supernatural, for example.
You get to the Christian God by other arguments and evidence.
Since your arguments don’t actually get you to theism, the other arguments which get you from theism to Christianity are non-starters.
No. The evidence points to a beginning of all physical reality, whether it be just our universe, or whether there be a multiverse.
No, just our comoving patch I’m afraid.
Vilenkin himself has made this quite clear. He examined all sorts of cosmologies, including those that posit the multiverse, universe cycles, etc., and showed how all of them require a temporal beginning.
The theorem shows that classical cosmological models which assume certain things require a temporal beginning. There are cosmologies which do not assume those things, and therefore don’t require a temporal beginning. Are these cosmological models “correct” or “complete” – of course not. But your claim that the theorem covers physical reality has you claiming that none of these models can be true, and also that quantum fluctuations do not invalidate the classical assumptions required by the theorem. Neither of those are known with any real degree of certainty, yet your argument requires them.
The Standard Model applies to our entire universe, both visible and not visible.
The standard model applies to our comoving patch. There could be other physics at work in other possible patches which may have arisen through, for example, inflation. We simply don’t know whether ours is the only solution to the equation (which invalidates any claims of fine-tuning, by the way) or if others are possible (due to something like spontaneous symmetry breaking).
Even apart from the Big Bang, entropy makes it clear that physical reality cannot be past eternal.
Rubbish. In the very early universe, entropy was at the maximum possible. The expansion of the universe increased the maximum possible entropy, meaning that the absolute entropy became only a small percentage of what it could be.
If the universe has always existed, regardless of the state, we would now be in a state of heat death. We are not, hence, the universe is not past eternal.
You don’t know that. Even if we were to live in a Boltzmann universe in equilibrium, we’d expect there to be localised fluctuations.
You don’t know the actual cosmology of the universe, and you need to know it to make such a claim, since there are plausible cosmological models which allow a past eternal universe to have parts of it well out of equilibrium (as our comoving patch is).
The universe just is the entire collection of all physical reality.
And what that actually is we don’t know. You seem content to claim that our comoving patch = the universe, when that is not the view of mainstream cosmology.
It’s not as if there were only 100 contingent objects in the universe that the universe a distinct object in addition to that 100.
You are implicitely acknowledging my point even while you deny it. You say “were only 100 contingent objects IN the universe”.
In your toy example, the universe is the collection of those 100 contingent objects as well as the space and time in which they are embedded.
In reality, the universe is whataver our contingent comoving patch might be embedded in. Me, I’m happy to wait to see what cosmology shows. You seem eager to announce something to be the case prematurely.
It contains the contingent beings that need to be explained, and there is nothing in or about the universe that requires it exist of a metaphysical necessity
You don’t know that. You also don’t know that the universe doesn’t have the attributes of whatever necessary being you think the arguments get you (none of which get you a person or mind that I’m aware of).
It means there is only one possible world. It means that it’s logically and metaphysically impossible for the universe to be composed of “chakas” (made up word) instead of quarks
Incorrect – quarks and/or chakas could be contingent features of the universe, while the universe itself, that which gave rise to these contingent features, is necessary.
It means the universe must have a specific number of quarks – not a single quark less, and not a single quark more.
Again, the number of quarks could well be a contingent feature of the universe, while the universe, which gave rise to this contingent number of quarks, is necessary.
There is simply no rational basis for affirming this.
You and I agree. However, what you’re asserting is not what I’m claiming, nor is it what I must claim.
You need to show why it is probable.
The universe is known to exist – that’s at least 1 point it has that God doesn’t 🙂
And yet, I’ve given many reasons to conclude the opposite.
You’ve given reasons to think that specific conceptions of the nature of a necessary universe are improbable.
You need to interact with those reasons, as well as offer some reasons of your own.
Done – you’re reasons are poor. Also, they can be reformulated to show that there are (poor) reasons to thin your God cannot be necessary.
The BGVT is based on solid mathematics and applies across a whole spectrum of cosmologies,
It’s based on solid mathematics that is known to be wrong or incomplete (classical physics). It applies to all spacetimes which make certain assumptions, but not to those which do not (a spacetime which has a period of contraction is, as far as I’m aware, untouched by the BGVT theorem, among others).
whereas our understanding about the balance of negative and positive energy is based on our ability to accurately measure gravity and matter.
Which we can do quite well, and do with ever increasing accuracy.
When your zero energy universe requires that you postulate a form of matter that no one has been able to detect,
Dark energy? We can detect it (by it’s gravitational effects)
Dark matter? We can detect it (by it’s gravitational effects).
and claim that this matter makes up the vast majority of the universe,
Well, when we weigh the universe, this is what we come up with.
which part of the weighing do you feel is invalid?
clearly this does not stand on the same grounds as the BGVT. We should be more skeptical of the one versus the other.
Really? Do we should trust pure theoretical physics over solidly established empirical observation?
Is that really what you meant to say?
If there was ever a point in time in which nothing existed, then there would still be nothing now.
How do you know that?
Something had to be eternal, and the best science and philosophy make it clear that the universe is not that something.
Substitute “comoving patch” for “universe”, and not only are you and I in agreement, but your statement is closer to reality.
Something transcendent to the universe must be that eternal something.
Where transcendant doesn’t mean supernatural, but rather “beyond” or “before” our co-moving patch. There’s a number of cosmologies which fit that bill, which are not nearly as epistemically heavy weight as “God”.
What else does it mean to say that some X began to exist than to say that there is a time t1 when it exists, but no earlier time in which it exists?
You made a case for this exact thing above, except you made it for your God.
Craig’s definition is helpful here: “All that needs to be true is that the thing exist at time t, and there is no time t* earlier than t when the thing exists.
this is just as true of Craig’s and your claims about God – prior to creation there is no time, so at the moment of creation, t, there is no time t* earlier than t when God exists, since there is no earlier time than t.
Another way of expressing this is to say that we can know something began if for any measurement of its existence, there are only a finite number of equal measurements prior to it.” Clearly this applies to the universe. It begins to exist.
As it also applies to God – there are only a finite number of equal measurements (back to the supposed moment of creation) prior to the current moment. Clearly this applies to God. God begins to exist.
LikeLike
May 17, 2014 at 6:14 pm
Why conceed that when there are cosmological models which do not rely upon the quantum fluctuations that large but are still not covered by the BGV?
Why not simply state that we do not know, rather than trying to prematurely come to conclusions?
Because the majority of the evidence points to a created, finite universe… we’re dealing with probabilities here… choose to wander off and believe in a different alternative, but don’t come over here and pretend you know of any better explanations for the beginning of the universe, because you don’t… In other words, as a scientist, you should go with the best model, until a better one comes along, which none has…
Rational thought makes no such thing clear. The arguments presented to support this claim , esp by WLC, are generally confused, assuming that an actual infinite instantiated in reality ought to conform to finite arithmetic for instance.
So our reality so far conforms with arithmetic, yet all of a sudden, you claim that our current universe does not need to conform to it… the burden of proof is on you to prove this, since it is an outlandish claim with no evidence whatsoever… and is even illogical. In other words, you can’t just doubt, without offering an answer in it’s place, ignoring the philosophical and scientific evidence on the contrary, and pretend it is a better explanation of reality…
Without a solid proof that an actual temporal infinity is actually incoherent and/or impossible to instantiate, this statement lacks any real support.
There are logical proofs that the universe is not infinite… such as not being able to traverse an infinite, but you just don’t want to listen… To state that it lacks any real support is to be intellectually dishonest. The burden of proof is on you to show proof against these logical proofs, as they have already been given, while you provided not a single argument yourself, you just engage in sophistry and unfounded skepticism…
A B-theory of time does undermine the argument however – there’s no longer any need to explain how the universe “began” to exist, because on B-theory, it didn’t – it always was. The Kalam fails, and you (and WLC) would need to put your efforts into other arguments.
You don’t understand the b-theory… if there is an illusion of change, then that illusion is also changing, and therefore applies to a reality that changes, because that appearance involves a becoming… Time for you to actually argue about the validity of a belief… good luck!
In contradistinction to things like the laws of logic and mathematical truths, it is logically possible to conceive of a physically empty universe, or no universe at all. How, then, can the universe be necessary?
It is possible to conceive of a different God or no God at all. how then can God be necessary?
Pretty simple: God is necessary for our contingent universe… If you disagree, provide actual arguments against this… Explain how a contingent being does not need a necessary being… All you are providing is irrational skepticism with no substantial arguments of your own… You are also mistaking the conception of a reality to the necessary correlation of a reality to that conception… This is clearly idealism, and not enough… because you have to explain how the qualities of that God, and see if they align with the properties of the greatest conceivable being. If they don’t, one would have to explain why the universe is the way it is… For example, if you were to say that there was an evil god, that would make no sense, as among with other problems, how would we explain the good in the universe, and the lack of absolute suffering… it just wouldn’t make sense, and this is why very few people actually believe these things, except for a few atheists and skeptics desperate on retaining their worldview…
So the laws of logic are only “necessary” in that they’re assumed to hold for a particular formal system, rather than being proved in that formal system.
Right, so I suppose in your extreme skepticism, you think you have a point. Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction? How about the law of simplification or conjunction? Extreme skepticism only points towards a denial of the obvious in favor of deceit… Trust me, you don’t sound smart being this skeptic, you sound like a desperate iconoclast.
Obvious to him I guess. You realise that Theistic philosophers like Swinburne do not hold to a necessary, but rather contingent God?
You can’t just assume that God is contingent, you are begging the question… God cannot be contingent if he is the first cause… This is proven by the creation of the universe by looking at the standard model, law of entropy, hubble law, radiation imprints in the cosmos, etc., and the argument from motion… It is now your burden of proof to actually refute these arguments and not provide a simple, well, I doubt that… or, well, it doesn’t HAVE to be that way… your skepticism is only a smokescreen for unsubstantiated arguments…
What is being referred to here is our comoving patch, and not the universe as it may be. We know our comoving patch traces back to the big bang event going against the thermodynamic arrow of time. This doesn’t mean the universe is contingent any more than the contingency of our comoving patch demonstrates that God, if it existed, is contingent.
Sure, it doesn’t mean that if you want to ignore the cosmological evidence in favor of a finite universe… If the universe is finite, it was created… It is contingent on a creator… If you believe God is contingent, offer up an argument for his contingency… simple skepticism says nothing substantial…
No, it cannot. The reason is that being (existing) has the nature that adding up contingent beings (things) can only give us a big pile of contingents.
This is fallacious reasoning(The Fallacy of Composition in fact).
How is that the fallacy of composition? If the conclusion is false, maybe, but have your proven that conclusion false? No you haven’t… So it is not a fallacy, but the most probable explanation so far… Don’t get too ahead of yourself bud… Instead of jumping to conclusions and claiming unsubstantiated fallacies, why don’t you yourself offer an actual argument against the necessity of God… You have offered not a single argument… You just assume. Anyone reading your comment, if siding with you, will go away with, I don’t know… instead of, well, God is contingent because of points a, b, etc… reflect on that…
Which undermines the argument for God, since everything we have experience with comes from some pre-existing stuff. ON what did God operate to cause the universe?
His omnipotence obviously… As for us experiencing only pre-existing stuff, you’re claiming that before existence, existence existed… which makes no sense obviously… In order to have time and space, the universe must have began with something of a different quality, otherwise it would be eternal… which goes against the cosmological evidence we have today, and also the philosophical arguments against eternal contingent existence…
You’re applying this same intuition to something quite drastically different – the universe as a whole. You haven’t argued as to why this leap is remotely legitimate.
Wrong: he is not basing himself off intuition, but rather a posteriori reasoning, coupled with abstract reasoning for the first cause… Also, the arguments are more legitimate than yours, which are absolutely none, you have provided no logical models for the infinite universe, nor a contingent god… while arguments in favor of a necessary being and first cause have been put forwards, which you have yet to address in a logical manner… besides simple skepticism…
B-Theory tells us that there is no need for a prior cause. A past eternal universe would have no prior cause either. Both of those are still options on the table.
The previous argument against the B-theory I gave refutes this point, until it is answered, good luck on that one…
At best these arguments show that there is something that is necessary, not that the Christian God (or something like it) is that necessary being.
An omnipotent God, omniscient, pure form, pure actuality, pure good, that sounds like the Christian God to me…
Most rebuttals to these arguments simply appeal to some alternative, unlikely scenario.
Many arguments for God rely upon possibility rather than probability.
Right, yet you have offered absolutely no proofs against the probability of these arguments, and you even deny the probability of them over some atheistic worldview, ignoring modern cosmological evidence and metaphysical proofs… nice try though!
The rest will take too much time, anyways, up until now, I have seen only skepticism and no actual substantial argument which addresses the metaphysical and scientific arguments which point beyond a reasonable doubt, towards God’s existence…
LikeLike
May 18, 2014 at 3:05 pm
Because the majority of the evidence points to a created, finite universe…
Rubbish. The majority of evidence points to our comoving patch being contained within a tiny space some 14 billion years ago.
but don’t come over here and pretend you know of any better explanations for the beginning of the universe, because you don’t…
you’ve got this entirely backwards. It’s the theist who is making claims about having an explanation for the beginning of the universe and completely failing to justify those claims.
I’m saying I don’t know and neither do you.
In other words, as a scientist, you should go with the best model, until a better one comes along, which none has…
And if we don’t have a good model, we should be ok with “I don’t know, but we’re working on it”. I’m confortable with that – are you?
So our reality so far conforms with arithmetic, yet all of a sudden, you claim that our current universe does not need to conform to it…
No, I’m saying that transfinite arithmetic differs from standard, finite arithmetic, and to base claims about the impossibility of an actual infinite being impossible on the simple fact that they’re not the same is silly.
the burden of proof is on you to prove this, since it is an outlandish claim with no evidence whatsoever…
Funny, since it’s the theist who is making the claim and failing to justify it. Again you seem to have the burden of proof exactly backwards.
In other words, you can’t just doubt, without offering an answer in it’s place,
How about this – if an actual infinity were instantiated it would conform to transfinite arithmetic and not standard arithmetic.
So, now we’re again left with the theist’s claim that actual infinities cannot exist, but failing to justify this claim.
ignoring the philosophical
Such as the arguments of WLC which are confused and matheatically naive?
Why shouldn’t we ignore such arguments?
and scientific evidence on the contrary,
What scientific evidence would that be?
We don’t know whether the universe is infinite in extent or is past eternal. Not sure what other evidence would be remotely relevant here.
There are logical proofs that the universe is not infinite…
Rubbish.
such as not being able to traverse an infinite, but you just don’t want to listen…
Being unable to traverse an infinite sequence has more to do with there being no beginning and no end. It doesn’t mean that you can’t move along the sequence.
The burden of proof is on you to show proof against these logical proofs, as they have already been given
Which logical proofs have been given?
You don’t understand the b-theory… if there is an illusion of change, then that illusion is also changing, and therefore applies to a reality that changes, because that appearance involves a becoming… Time for you to actually argue about the validity of a belief… good luck!
It’s you who doesn’t undertand a b-theory of time. In a block universe there is no true “before”. It does indeed undermine the Kalam, which is why WLC argues so heavily for an A-Theory, and why he wrote an entire book attempting to reformulate Relativity in terms of an A-Theory.
Pretty simple: God is necessary for our contingent universe… If you disagree, provide actual arguments against this…
Well, if we’re arguing by assertion as you’re doing here – the universe is necessary for out contingent comoving patch.
For example, if you were to say that there was an evil god, that would make no sense, as among with other problems, how would we explain the good in the universe, and the lack of absolute suffering… it just wouldn’t make sense, and this is why very few people actually believe these things, except for a few atheists and skeptics desperate on retaining their worldview…
You obviously don’t understand the “evil god” argument.
“If you were to say there was a good god, that would mak no sense, as among other problems, how would you explain the evil in the universe, and the lack of absolute pleasure.. it just wouldn’t make sense”.
The evil God problem shows just how much special pleading theists engage in in justifying their responses to the problme of evil.
Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction? How about the law of simplification or conjunction? Extreme skepticism only points towards a denial of the obvious in favor of deceit… Trust me, you don’t sound smart being this skeptic, you sound like a desperate iconoclast.
There are logic systems which do not contain the law of non-contradiction as an axiom. I guess you don’t believe in them?
Making claims, such as that there is a single “logic”, without justification, simply won’t do.
You can’t just assume that God is contingent, you are begging the question…
Actually, if you read Swinburne’s work (who, by the way, is a Christian), you’ll see he doesn’t just assume this.
God cannot be contingent if he is the first cause…
If there is a first cause, it is not necessarily your God.
This is proven by the creation of the universe by looking at the standard model, law of entropy, hubble law, radiation imprints in the cosmos, etc., and the argument from motion…
none of those get your a “transcendant, supernatural” first cause. Good luck making that leap.
It is now your burden of proof to actually refute these arguments and not provide a simple, well, I doubt that… or, well, it doesn’t HAVE to be that way… your skepticism is only a smokescreen for unsubstantiated arguments…
Physics gets us back to the early universe, so no first cause or creator to be found there. Entropy won’t help you either, since in the early universe the total entropy of the universe was much closer to the maximum, as a percentage, than it is now (relative entropy has decreased even while absolute entropy has increased).
CMBR get’s you back to the early universe, and like the standard model, inflationary cosmology, etc, no creator or first cause is to be gleaned from there.
So, since you’re not actually making any solid arguments here for me to refute, I think we’d both be better off admitting our ignorance rather than you continuing to assert you know something you quite obviously do not.
Sure, it doesn’t mean that if you want to ignore the cosmological evidence in favor of a finite universe… If the universe is finite, it was created… It is contingent on a creator… If you believe God is contingent, offer up an argument for his contingency… simple skepticism says nothing substantial…
So many unjustified leaps in a single paragraph.
The cosmological evidence indicates a finite distance temporally for our comoving patch, not “the universe”.
So you’ll need to make arguments that the universe itself IS finite, and that being finite means it was created.
I’m not going to argue that your God is contingent, since your God doesn’t exist. You’ll need to take that up with people like Swinbburne who don’t share your conception of God.
Once you’ve sorted out what your God might actually be like, get back to me.
How is that the fallacy of composition?
Because it’s applying what is true of the parts to the whole – text book fallacy of composition.
If the conclusion is false, maybe, but have your proven that conclusion false? No you haven’t… So it is not a fallacy
The conclusion could be true and the argument would still be fallacious.
You don’t seem to understand what a logical fallacy is.
but the most probable explanation so far…
It’s would be pretty poor for your explanation to require fallacious reasonsing, don’t you think.
Instead of jumping to conclusions and claiming unsubstantiated fallacies, why don’t you yourself offer an actual argument against the necessity of God…
Why bother? You obviously don’t understand logical reasoning if you think a fallacious argument requires a false conclusion.
Besides, I’m ok accepting the claim that if god exists he exists necessarily, even though that particular claim hasn’t been justified. What I’m not going to accept is that claim that God actually exists because if God exixts he exists necessarily – that simply does not follow and has not been justified.
Anyone reading your comment, if siding with you, will go away with, I don’t know… instead of, well, God is contingent because of points a, b, etc… reflect on that…
Well, since you’ve not demonstrated that God is actually necessary (ie. actually exists and exists necessarily), and I’ve pointed out theists who do not agree on this, I think I’ve done enough to undermine the claims here.
His omnipotence obviously…
Right. Please explain further. Since we only have experience of power being applied to “stuff”, perhaps you can explain how power applied to nothing can do anything?
As for us experiencing only pre-existing stuff, you’re claiming that before existence, existence existed… which makes no sense obviously…
you’re right, that does make no sense. Fortunately that’s not what I’m claiming at all.
I’m simply claiming that all of our experience of things “coming in to existence” is of pre-existing stuff being changed into the thing.
In order to have time and space, the universe must have began with something of a different quality, otherwise it would be eternal… which goes against the cosmological evidence we have today, and also the philosophical arguments against eternal contingent existence…
So what was that thing of a different quality? You’re not admitting that the universe came from some pre-existing material. You realise that, don’t you?
Wrong: Also, the arguments are more legitimate than yours, which are absolutely none, you have provided no logical models for the infinite universe, nor a contingent god…
Since I’ve given reasons to think that the arguments against an infinite or eternal universe are flawed, and have given pointers to theists who believe God to be contingent, it seems the ball is once again in the theists court here.
while arguments in favor of a necessary being and first cause have been put forwards,
neither of which arguments result in theism.
which you have yet to address in a logical manner… besides simple skepticism…
Since the leap from the first cause or a necessary being to theism hasn’t been justified as yet, then I don’t see that I have any work to do.
The previous argument against the B-theory I gave refutes this point, until it is answered, good luck on that one…
Your understanding of the B-theory was confused, and your argument failed.
An omnipotent God, omniscient, pure form, pure actuality, pure good, that sounds like the Christian God to me…
Sure, if you just assume the “first cause” or “necessary being” has those attributes you might get there.
Right, yet you have offered absolutely no proofs against the probability of these arguments, and you even deny the probability of them over some atheistic worldview, ignoring modern cosmological evidence and metaphysical proofs… nice try though!
First, the arguments are based on possibility (ie. it’s possible that God could allow great evil), without any attempt at providing a probability. So what should I seek to undermine here?
Secondly, your cosmological evidence and metaphysical proofs are severely lacking.
LikeLike
May 18, 2014 at 8:03 pm
Rubbish. The majority of evidence points to our comoving patch being contained within a tiny space some 14 billion years ago.
So you don’t agree with the standard model of cosmology and the BGV theorem? Do you believe in a closed system? If so, how did inflation begin? Do you believe the universe came from nothing? If from something, what is that something? Do you believe the universe is infinite?
you’ve got this entirely backwards. It’s the theist who is making claims about having an explanation for the beginning of the universe and completely failing to justify those claims.
I’m saying I don’t know and neither do you.
Well, actually the theist has a better explanation than your skepticism… While you have no idea, the theist can state what is in line with modern science, that the universe has a first cause… The universe is not infinite, and so would need a creator… What other explanation is there besides the first cause in modern cosmology? Hopefully you don’t say quantum fluctuations, which would mean something and not nothing…
And if we don’t have a good model, we should be ok with “I don’t know, but we’re working on it”. I’m confortable with that – are you?
I’m only good with that because we’re searching for empirical evidence, which, pertaining to the first cause, in it’s essence is unmeasurable, and surprisingly, scientists are finding out they have certain boundaries they can’t explain… physically… What do metaphysical arguments have to say? Plenty… I find the first cause argument to make sense, and is in line with the evidence give till today… so yes, it is better than an I don’t know… you are pretending science can answer the most important metaphysical questions, without taking a look at how metaphysical proofs, with science, can better explain the world than only science can… Other sciences show this as well, obviously…
No, I’m saying that transfinite arithmetic differs from standard, finite arithmetic, and to base claims about the impossibility of an actual infinite being impossible on the simple fact that they’re not the same is silly.
The difference between one thing and another is what makes a potential infinity… instead of an actual infinity… What exactly do you believe is an actual infinity? our universe? If you were to think so, that each individual result is finite and different, would contradict this notion… as we experience reality. You would have to somehow prove that actual points of time and space exist, independent of our specification of them…
Funny, since it’s the theist who is making the claim and failing to justify it. Again you seem to have the burden of proof exactly backwards.
Funny, the claims have been given… the burden of proof is now on you to try and refute that claims, which you have failed to do…
So, now we’re again left with the theist’s claim that actual infinities cannot exist, but failing to justify this claim.
The burden of proof is now on you, because you have to somehow prove that actual points of time and space exist independent of our specification of them…
ignoring the philosophical
Such as the arguments of WLC which are confused and matheatically naive?
Why shouldn’t we ignore such arguments?
This isn’t a substantial argument obviously…
and scientific evidence on the contrary,
What scientific evidence would that be?
We don’t know whether the universe is infinite in extent or is past eternal. Not sure what other evidence would be remotely relevant here.
So you’re saying the majority of the evidence we have does not point towards a finite universe?
There are logical proofs that the universe is not infinite…
Rubbish.
Nice rebuttal to those arguments… maybe you don’t know how to refute them? Provide substantial arguments please… Your non-willingness to engage those arguments is telling…
such as not being able to traverse an infinite, but you just don’t want to listen…
Being unable to traverse an infinite sequence has more to do with there being no beginning and no end. It doesn’t mean that you can’t move along the sequence.
Do you believe that the past-time is finite or infinite? If you say infinite, how do arrive at the present?
The burden of proof is on you to show proof against these logical proofs, as they have already been given
Which logical proofs have been given?
The first cause argument, I’ll add the argument from motion in there too…
You don’t understand the b-theory… if there is an illusion of change, then that illusion is also changing, and therefore applies to a reality that changes, because that appearance involves a becoming… Time for you to actually argue about the validity of a belief… good luck!
It’s you who doesn’t undertand a b-theory of time. In a block universe there is no true “before”. It does indeed undermine the Kalam, which is why WLC argues so heavily for an A-Theory, and why he wrote an entire book attempting to reformulate Relativity in terms of an A-Theory.
I fail to see how your rebuttal even addressed my argument (with relevance)… Anyways, the block universe idea is erroneous, because:
it fails to account for the subjective sense of continuity in time…
How do you explain different attitudes in the different tenses? For example, if something unpleasant happens to me, and I am happy when it is over, under your point of view, no such thing would be possible, as the end (the unpleasant experience being over in my example) is not possible…
The subjective flow of time being seen as an illusion has already been explained in my first rebuttal, and you have failed to address that obviously…
Well, if we’re arguing by assertion as you’re doing here – the universe is necessary for out contingent comoving patch.
I’m only arguing by assertion if you wish to ignore the arguments in favor of God as a necessary being…
God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)
Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)
A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)
A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).)
A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)
It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of “God”.)
Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)
God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)
Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)
See Plantinga 1967.
Clearly, if God exists, he is the first cause, and being so, all creation is contingent while God is necessary…
God is a necessary being because existence is part of his essence… It is impossible that God can be God and not exist… If you don’t believe in God, you would have to prove that it is impossible that God exists…
You obviously don’t understand the “evil god” argument.
“If you were to say there was a good god, that would mak no sense, as among other problems, how would you explain the evil in the universe, and the lack of absolute pleasure.. it just wouldn’t make sense”.
The evil God problem shows just how much special pleading theists engage in in justifying their responses to the problme of evil.
Wait, are you saying I don’t understand the evil god argument? You didn’t even address the evil god argument, where specifically did I not understand the evil god argument?
How could there be absolute pleasure if clearly the universe is imperfect? How would we have free will if we had absolute pleasure? What kind of universe would it be if there was absolute pleasure? You make no sense… On the other hand, the theist can reasonably explain that God, giving free will to humans, let them experience suffering, happiness, pleasure, pain, evil, good, etc… The reason there is evil in the universe is through imperfection, lack of good…
Also, you didn’t realize, that the evil god problem is not one I brought up believing in, but rather criticizing, as it was used by an atheist philosopher with the last name, Tooley…
There are logic systems which do not contain the law of non-contradiction as an axiom. I guess you don’t believe in them?
Making claims, such as that there is a single “logic”, without justification, simply won’t do.
Are you denying the law of non-contradiction? Pure skepticism at it’s best! Instead of saying they exist, provide which one you hold dear, and we’ll take a look at the flaws in it!
You can’t just assume that God is contingent, you are begging the question…
Actually, if you read Swinburne’s work (who, by the way, is a Christian), you’ll see he doesn’t just assume this.
Why don’t you actually present the argument? It’s basic premises and conclusion…
God cannot be contingent if he is the first cause…
If there is a first cause, it is not necessarily your God.
What does your skeptic lack of knowledge propose in place of God?
This is proven by the creation of the universe by looking at the standard model, law of entropy, hubble law, radiation imprints in the cosmos, etc., and the argument from motion…
none of those get your a “transcendant, supernatural” first cause. Good luck making that leap.
What? Was that your argument? How about you explain the inconsistency between this information and the argument from motion plus the first cause? Substantial arguments please, not meaningless skepticism…
It is now your burden of proof to actually refute these arguments and not provide a simple, well, I doubt that… or, well, it doesn’t HAVE to be that way… your skepticism is only a smokescreen for unsubstantiated arguments…
Physics gets us back to the early universe, so no first cause or creator to be found there. Entropy won’t help you either, since in the early universe the total entropy of the universe was much closer to the maximum, as a percentage, than it is now (relative entropy has decreased even while absolute entropy has increased).
CMBR get’s you back to the early universe, and like the standard model, inflationary cosmology, etc, no creator or first cause is to be gleaned from there.
So, since you’re not actually making any solid arguments here for me to refute, I think we’d both be better off admitting our ignorance rather than you continuing to assert you know something you quite obviously do not.
How does any of the physical evidence taking us back to the early universe prove that there is no creator? You must be forgetting that the period where the universe actually began has not been measured physically to any conclusive position that could deny creation?
It in fact gives more credence to the cosmological argument because it points towards a finite universe… How about the new BICEP2 project? There seems to be gravitational waves there, which point towards rapid early expansion… what do you think caused this expansion?
What do you believe in? Past-eternal models?
“Inflationary cosmology suggests that in the early universe, before cosmic inflation, energy was uniformly distributed, and the universe was thus in a state superficially similar to heat death. However, these two states are actually very different: in the early universe, gravity was a very important force, and in a gravitational system, if energy is uniformly distributed, entropy is quite low, compared to a state in which most matter has collapsed into black holes. Thus, such a state is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, as it is thermodynamically unstable.”
Andrew R Liddle; Andrew R Liddle (1999). “An introduction to cosmological inflation”
The cosmological evidence indicates a finite distance temporally for our comoving patch, not “the universe”.
So you’ll need to make arguments that the universe itself IS finite, and that being finite means it was created.
I’m not going to argue that your God is contingent, since your God doesn’t exist. You’ll need to take that up with people like Swinbburne who don’t share your conception of God.
Once you’ve sorted out what your God might actually be like, get back to me.
So you’re basically running away from having to provide reasons as to why God doesn’t exist, or is contingent. Don’t just appeal to authority, provide arguments… I already provided proofs as to how if the universe is finite, God created it…
What is your definition of the “universe”?
Are you saying that the energy and matter of the observable universe was not concentrated in the Planck epoch?
“An actual infinite cannot exist.”
“An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.”
“\therefore An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.”
“An actual infinite cannot be completed by successive addition.”
“The temporal series of past events has been completed by successive addition.”
“\therefore The temporal series of past events cannot be an actual infinite.”
-Aristotle.
How is that the fallacy of composition?
Because it’s applying what is true of the parts to the whole – text book fallacy of composition.
If the conclusion is false, maybe, but have your proven that conclusion false? No you haven’t… So it is not a fallacy
The conclusion could be true and the argument would still be fallacious.
You don’t seem to understand what a logical fallacy is.
but the most probable explanation so far…
It’s would be pretty poor for your explanation to require fallacious reasonsing, don’t you think.
Maybe you should show what was wrong with the argument instead of saying it is a logical fallacy? That is, explain HOW it is a logical fallacy, step by step please… referring to the argument, using the exact words I said as a reference…
Instead of jumping to conclusions and claiming unsubstantiated fallacies, why don’t you yourself offer an actual argument against the necessity of God…
Why bother? You obviously don’t understand logical reasoning if you think a fallacious argument requires a false conclusion.
Red herring… try again… you have consistently failed to offer an argument besides appealing to authority…
Besides, I’m ok accepting the claim that if god exists he exists necessarily, even though that particular claim hasn’t been justified. What I’m not going to accept is that claim that God actually exists because if God exixts he exists necessarily – that simply does not follow and has not been justified.
Refer to the ontological argument I made reference to earlier…
Anyone reading your comment, if siding with you, will go away with, I don’t know… instead of, well, God is contingent because of points a, b, etc… reflect on that…
Well, since you’ve not demonstrated that God is actually necessary (ie. actually exists and exists necessarily), and I’ve pointed out theists who do not agree on this, I think I’ve done enough to undermine the claims here.
Refer to the earlier argument, and no, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, try providing the argument in this thread so we can judge as to it’s veracity…
His omnipotence obviously…
Right. Please explain further. Since we only have experience of power being applied to “stuff”, perhaps you can explain how power applied to nothing can do anything?
“Although creation ex nihilo has been compromised, confused, and contradicted, nothing could be more certain, correct, or theologically significant. Why? Because the doctrine of creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) implies God’s necessary existence, underscores his divine freedom, and exhibits his divine omnipotence.
First, creation out of nothing bolsters the notion of God’s necessary existence as the only Being who cannot not be. As such, the church fathers described the Father of creation as uncreated and unbegotten, in contrast to all else that was created and begotten. Put another way, all that exists, except God himself, is necessarily contingent on and grounded in the creative decisions and will of God.
Furthermore, creation ex nihilo also calls attention to God’s freedom to create or to act otherwise. As such, the cosmos and all that is in it was neither mandatory nor a mishap. God freely chose to create humans and a habitat distinct from himself.
Finally, the doctrine of creation out of nothing underscores the reality that God alone is omnipotent. A God who creates out of eternally existing matter is less than the omnipotent Sovereign of the universe who spoke, and all that is leaped into existence.”
http://www.faithgateway.com/did-god-create-everything-out-of-nothing/#.U3ltuSgRl8E
If you believe God is not omnipotent, provide proofs as to why he is not omnipotent…
As for us experiencing only pre-existing stuff, you’re claiming that before existence, existence existed… which makes no sense obviously…
you’re right, that does make no sense. Fortunately that’s not what I’m claiming at all.
I’m simply claiming that all of our experience of things “coming in to existence” is of pre-existing stuff being changed into the thing.
Well, unfortunately, pre-existing stuff implies what I just said, that you’re claiming before existence, existence existed… You’re claiming time and space existed before they were caused by a creator… Otherwise you would believe that they always existed, which would lead to infinite regress… Obviously both are incoherent views…
In order to have time and space, the universe must have began with something of a different quality, otherwise it would be eternal… which goes against the cosmological evidence we have today, and also the philosophical arguments against eternal contingent existence…
So what was that thing of a different quality? You’re not admitting that the universe came from some pre-existing material. You realise that, don’t you?
Yeah, that was God obviously… God is supernatural, of a different quality than the natural… God is not material… he transcends material.
Since I’ve given reasons to think that the arguments against an infinite or eternal universe are flawed, and have given pointers to theists who believe God to be contingent, it seems the ball is once again in the theists court here.
What? Wait, what arguments did you give, after my rebuttals of course, that the universe is infinite? You gave “pointers”, you mean you gave an appeal to authority… post the argument itself…
while arguments in favor of a necessary being and first cause have been put forwards,
So I guess the ontological argument, the first cause argument, and the arguments from motion don’t conclude in theism right?
which you have yet to address in a logical manner… besides simple skepticism…
Since the leap from the first cause or a necessary being to theism hasn’t been justified as yet, then I don’t see that I have any work to do.
I’ve already laid out the ontological argument as being a theistic argument, now lets refute you on the first cause argument, along with motion and necessary being again… (taking from Kreeft on Aquinas)
“First, he argues that the chain of movers must have a first mover because nothing can move itself. (Moving here refers to any kind of change, not just change of place.) If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover.
Second, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe’s coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us. Therefore there must be a first cause.
Third, he argues that if there were no eternal, necessary, and immortal being, if everything had a possibility of not being, of ceasing to be, then eventually this possibility of ceasing to be would be realized for everything. In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die. But in that case nothing could start up again. We would have universal death, for a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause itself or anything else to begin to exist again. And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God. ”
-Peter Kreeft
Your understanding of the B-theory was confused, and your argument failed.
Nope, you didn’t even address my argument… you just stated you believe in the block universe, you didn’t even touch the specific argument I gave against the subjective flow of time and it’s correlation with an real flow of time… try again…
An omnipotent God, omniscient, pure form, pure actuality, pure good, that sounds like the Christian God to me…
Sure, if you just assume the “first cause” or “necessary being” has those attributes you might get there.
“Furthermore, there is the untenable notion that something existed, but that something was an impersonal potentiality out of which every potentiality—from protein molecules to personal mind—emerged. This idea, however, hardly advances the proverbial ball. As common sense tells us, every effect must have a cause equal to or greater than itself.”
Hank Haneegraaff
Article 3. Whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone?
Objection 1. It seems that to be essentially good does not belong to God alone. For as “one” is convertible with “being,” so is “good”; as we said above (Question 5, Article 1). But every being is one essentially, as appears from the Philosopher (Metaph. iv); therefore every being is good essentially.
Objection 2. Further, if good is what all things desire, since being itself is desired by all, then the being of each thing is its good. But everything is a being essentially; therefore every being is good essentially.
Objection 3. Further, everything is good by its own goodness. Therefore if there is anything which is not good essentially, it is necessary to say that its goodness is not its own essence. Therefore its goodness, since it is a being, must be good; and if it is good by some other goodness, the same question applies to that goodness also; therefore we must either proceed to infinity, or come to some goodness which is not good by any other goodness. Therefore the first supposition holds good. Therefore everything is good essentially.
On the contrary, Boethius says (De Hebdom.), that “all things but God are good by participation.” Therefore they are not good essentially.
I answer that, God alone is good essentially. For everything is called good according to its perfection. Now perfection of a thing is threefold: first, according to the constitution of its own being; secondly, in respect of any accidents being added as necessary for its perfect operation; thirdly, perfection consists in the attaining to something else as the end. Thus, for instance, the first perfection of fire consists in its existence, which it has through its own substantial form; its secondary perfection consists in heat, lightness and dryness, and the like; its third perfection is to rest in its own place. This triple perfection belongs to no creature by its own essence; it belongs to God only, in Whom alone essence is existence; in Whom there are no accidents; since whatever belongs to others accidentally belongs to Him essentially; as, to be powerful, wise and the like, as appears from what is stated above (Question 3, Article 6); and He is not directed to anything else as to an end, but is Himself the last end of all things. Hence it is manifest that God alone has every kind of perfection by His own essence; therefore He Himself alone is good essentially.
Reply to Objection 1. “One” does not include the idea of perfection, but only of indivision, which belongs to everything according to its own essence. Now the essences of simple things are undivided both actually and potentially, but the essences of compounds are undivided only actually; and therefore everything must be one essentially, but not good essentially, as was shown above.
Reply to Objection 2. Although everything is good in that it has being, yet the essence of a creature is not very being; and therefore it does not follow that a creature is good essentially.
Reply to Objection 3. The goodness of a creature is not its very essence, but something superadded; it is either its existence, or some added perfection, or the order to its end. Still, the goodness itself thus added is good, just as it is being. But for this reason is it called being because by it something has being, not because it itself has being through something else: hence for this reason is it called good because by it something is good, and not because it itself has some other goodness whereby it is good.
-Aquinas
First, the arguments are based on possibility (ie. it’s possible that God could allow great evil), without any attempt at providing a probability. So what should I seek to undermine here?
Secondly, your cosmological evidence and metaphysical proofs are severely lacking.
Explain the probability of the universe coming to be randomly… Explain how it came to be as well…
Prove that God is not the first cause, prove that he is not the prime mover…
Prove that God is not a necessary being…
Prove that God is not essentially good.
Respond to my rebuttals made along the way…
LikeLike
June 6, 2018 at 7:06 pm
As it turns out from the days of the Einstein-Hilbert description through the Copenhagen interpretation all the way up to modern day demonstrations and even products like Intel’s new quantum processors it is in fact known that many quantum events are completely non-contingent…. If they were, they wouldn’t work.
So the idea that its not known if quantum event are either causal or non contingent is, to be perfectly honest, just plain wrong.
Yes it can be tested for, yes it has been and sorry but the evidence, the math, and now a heap load of working commercial products based on this fact disagree with you.
I’d be sure you can derive some other counter to the recent collapse of the KCA. This idea of just insisting quantum events are causal is not one if them.
I’m afraid this gets an F. One that could have been avoided by spending 10 minutes doing research online.
LikeLike