All of the scientific evidence points to the temporal finitude of physical reality, even if physical reality extends beyond the Big Bang (see here and here). And yet, scientists continue to come up with mathematical models that permit an eternal universe/multiverse, and atheists continue to promote them because both are under the mistaken presumption that if physical reality is eternal, then there is no need for a transcendent cause, and thus no need for God. As David Berlinski observed, “While an eternal universe makes it meaningless to ask when the universe began to exist, since its existence is not necessary it is still meaningful to ask why it exists.” The fact that physical reality is contingent means that even if the universe/multiverse is eternal, it still needs a cause.
Peter Williams provides an excellent illustration involving the borrowing of a book to make this same point, which I detailed in a previous post. Recently I stumbled on two more lucid illustrations by Rabbi Adam Jacobs. Writing at the Huffington Post (of all places), Jacobs invites his readers to imagine the following scenarios:
[L]et’s say that there were an infinite array of mirrors reflecting one to the other and an image of a bear in each mirror. Would it be possible to suggest that the image of the bear stretches on infinitely with no actual bear to start the reflections reflecting? Surely not. Even if there were an infinite number of mirrors, there would still need to be a real bear (a cause) who initiated the reflective series.
And again:
Say you were driving along the quiet and bucolic countryside when you’re forced to (patiently) wait at a train crossing. All you see is a series of flatbed cars that seems to go on for miles. After an uncomfortably long wait you realize that this is an infinite series of flatbed rail cars! Would it then be logical to conclude that there is nothing actually pulling these cars – no locomotive? That would clearly be absurd, as you know very well that flatbed rail cars have no power of locomotion, i.e., they are contingent/dependent on an outside force to move. As such, you can (and must) conclude that even if there are an infinite number of these cars – or of anything (any series of contingencies) — there must be an original, non-contingent force that is doing the moving, a force that has not been, and cannot be influenced by any other. This force is God.[1]
I fail to see how one could argue against this reasoning, but I invite my atheist readers to try. It seems to me, however, that atheists have to come to terms with the fact that whether physical reality extends finitely or infinitely into the past, it can only be explained by a transcendent cause, and by definition such a cause must be immaterial, timeless, and spaceless, which is minimally what theists have always meant by “God.”
See also
- Even if the universe is eternal, it still needs a cause
- Science Cannot Prove the Universe is Eternal
[1]Rabbi Adam Jacobs, “An Iron-Clad Proof of God”; available from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870.html?utm_hp_ref=religion; Internet; accessed 29 January 2013.
Thinking to Believe 
February 12, 2013 at 12:09 pm
I’m not one of your atheist readers, but our experience of “things stopped, but then being started” has always, in fact, been of “things already going, then being redirected by interactions.” Newton’s first law is not “Every object is stopped until made to move.” It is that “every object of velocity V remains at velocity V unless acted-upon.”
We have never, ever had an experience with a “truly stopped thing” such that we can claim “in order for a stopped thing to go, it needs pushing.” All we have is a folk notion of “stopped” which means “the object’s motion is perceptually akin to the motion of its surroundings.”
Furthermore, those redirective interactions may all be of particles system-internal. Thus there is no need for a system-external (“transcendent”) particle in order for motion to change.
So no, there’s no need for an “original force.” It’s a softer (more elegant; less entities) claim to say that everything has always been moving.
That said, science may come to determine that there was a point of movement preceded IN TIME by absolute nonmovement. But that hasn’t yet happened.
Remember not to commit the “timeline fallacy” of drawing “time” as a ray from 0 onward, but sitting on a greater “timeline” that extends both negative and positive, and then imagining something at time -1 interacting with something at 0 in a temporal sense. If “time” is a ray from 0 onward, there is no greater “timeline” of negatives on which temporal activity can take place.
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 12:10 pm
(The relationship between cause and effect is temporal.)
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 3:14 pm
I’d disagree with Stan myself (as would a number of philosophers). Scientific cause and effect (efficient cause) is temporal, but this does not mean that all explanations are temporal in nature.
That is to say, claiming that time began at T=0 does not circumvent the need to answer the question “Why did time begin?”. The principle of sufficient reason is not a temporal construct.
Personally, I’ve heard far too many claim that the existence of the universe is a “brute fact”. The trouble with this is that the term “brute fact” here is indistinguishable from “magic”. It is not an explanation, but, specifically, the refusal to give an explanation.
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 3:20 pm
It’s true that time beginning at T=0 does not circumvent that question. But it does not require an explanation preceding T=0 and, if it does, then it is making a temporal appeal.
Furthermore, “God did it” is also indistinguishable from “magic.” Neither theism nor atheism has yet won this football game, but rest assured, the diehard fans of both teams will insist its fate is sealed in their favor.
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 4:23 pm
The issue is not the nature of motion, but effects and causes. Even if there are an infinite number of mirrors containing the face of a bear, there still needs to be an explanation how that face got in there, and the explanation cannot be that it got in there because there are an infinite number of mirrors. There must be a real bear that those mirrors are reflecting. Likewise, even if the universe is eternal, we cannot explain the universe by always appealing to a prior cause. It is a contingent reality that requires a non-contingent causal explanation.
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 4:29 pm
Jason, when you say “causal explanation,” do you mean an efficient cause? If so, then my first post on this matter remains an issue for you (you would then be invoking that “greater timeline”). And that seems to be the case, since your thought experiment is one that involves photons bouncing off of objects in time.
If you mean material cause, then there can be such a material cause at T=0 onward; no T=-1 deities required.
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 4:49 pm
A causal explanation is one that seeks to explain what X produced Y.
As for t=0, I’m referring to infinite time so there is no t=0. An eternal universe cannot be explained by a material cause because the existnce of matter is itself what needs to be explained.
Jason
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 4:54 pm
In an eternal universe, there are a plethora of causes. Infinite causes. Nothing says that one of them has to be first: any particular cause you look at will, in turn, have a cause.
It’s like the train in the thought experiment you provided. And as I mentioned before, it is only our folk notion of “stopped stuff” that makes us think an always-been-moving train is “absurd”; the reality is that we have never seen anything “stopped,” only moving and then moving differently due to proximal interactions.
In this sense, we could be part of an “inert” (that is, proceeding from an infinitely ancient inertia) universe.
LikeLike
February 13, 2013 at 5:04 am
Jason,
I like the analogies in trying to explain the scenario and agree that they cannot argue that the universe just is on the basis of an infinite past (which imo is incoherent since an actual infinite cannot exist). Evn if we allow the infinite past, it still requires either an external cause or it is itself necessary. I haven’t heard a single decent argument for the necessity of the universe and so it requires an external cause. That cause is God (who happens to be necessary)
LikeLike
February 13, 2013 at 9:43 pm
In discussions like these, philosophical arguments are often countered with mathematics. The advantage of mathematics is that it is internally consistent (otherwise, it would easily be proven false). The advantage of philosophy is that it contains logical deductions (otherwise, it too would easily be proven false). Thus, the challenge for the undecided audience is to choose what to believe in, mathematics or logic.
Personally, I have chosen to believe in logic and the reason is very simple (children up to a certain age are thrilled by this example):
I claim that I have 11 fingers: First counting the ones on my right hand, 1-2-3-4-5, and then counting the ones on my left hand but backwards, 10-9-8-7-6, I conclude that 5 + 6 = 11.
The fact that the mathematics is internally consistent does not necessarily mean that it can properly describe reality or claim to be true, and within a couple of minutes even children can explain why.
Logically and intuitively something in motion must have been set in motion, regardless of what internally consistent mathematics may claim to prove.
LikeLike
February 13, 2013 at 10:00 pm
“Something in motion must have been set in motion” is intuitive (because we see things that appear “stopped” become “moving” when forces are acting upon them), but that claim is not “logical.” Nothing about logic says that something in motion must have been set in motion. Newton’s first law says only that things in a particular motion remain so unless acted upon.
Frankly, your finger-counting example is a great illustration of how things that seem intuitive (in this case, the two counts) produce false conclusions. It is similarly the case here (but we’d only say “inconclusiveness”). Our intuitions about “moving things needing a start from some stopped place” may be like our acceptance of the tricky-hand-counting; seemingly intuitive, but ultimately false.
LikeLike
February 14, 2013 at 8:49 pm
Good point, Stan. The motion-example didn’t quite hold. My mind was set on the origin of the universe/multiverse, i. e. it not being eternal.
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 12:34 am
Stan,
The fact that everything is in motion all the time does nothing to undermine the point. If a train was always moving from eternity past, one would still have to explain why it is moving rather than not moving. It would either have to have had an initial cause to set it in motion, or one would have to say that there is something about its very nature that requires it to be moving.
Jason
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 9:48 am
“It has always been moving” qualifies as “There is something about its nature that requires it to be moving,” unless you think there is some agent acting in opposition its motion, against which it would need a perpetual boost from some external source.
LikeLike
June 17, 2013 at 1:45 am
Stan,
I have read your comments, and quite honestly, I don’t understand…. but I get the feeling that’s the point. First there is the use of Newton. You want to use his proof for your point, but then you disregard Newton by saying “We have never, ever had an experience with a “truly stopped thing”’. So why bring him up in the first place?! The statement is somewhat akin to what Einstein argues in Relativity, and the train example almost a copy of one of Einstein’s examples of his own principle. Newton’s was the predominant theoretical idea of the day, but that was superseded by Einstein. Sooo…..?
On the whole “stop/motion” thing, I am guessing your claim is that “if I ‘stop’ something I haven’t actually stopped it because it is still moving by atoms or universe.” At this point you leave the purpose and point of relativity. The whole point was to recognize that things work within their relational construct. But this would be to use the macro to argue the micro. But no one else does that…. at least not since Einstein came along. No one creates experiments about butterflies and talks about them in relation to planetary motion or vice versa. And no one pretends that my actions on something moving to end its motion aren’t real just because atoms or planets are still moving…. or whatever you seem to mean by ‘stop’ or ‘motion.’ This is discussion without defined parameters.
But it is also a problem of vocabulary. Everyone uses ‘stop’ the same except you. “Stop” is our word for 0 V as related to ourselves or as related to the defined experimental field (if different than ourselves). Thus my car can really be at 0 mph because my speedometer is telling me the relationship of my tires to the ground beneath me, not the relation to earth’s rotation, the galaxy’s trajectory, or the universe’s expansion. However you want to “stop” to mean “not really stop, but still moving in ANY situation regardless of the defined parameters”. Thus for the world of Stan, all speedometers should have infinity on both ends, while at the same time absent a zero in the middle because zero does not exist…. except when you talk about ‘T’. This is introducing verbal confusion. And it is introduced not for the purposes of clarity, but solely for the purposes of being right.
I’ll even take it a step further — understanding. To suggest that the pen on my desk next to me has “motion by nature” (your last post) is to suggest a motion other than velocity. This is not redefining of terms, but an ‘understanding of terms’. Thus either you do not understand, or I do not understand the use of the word ‘motion’. But on this I am willing to concede the point. You could be completely right that my pen has “motion by nature.” But you are left describing or defining the manner and parameters of this new motion and how it is a potential inherent property of an object, as it is clearly different than my understanding or a common general understanding.
As to your T=-1 idea/theory, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and Guth were able to construct computer models of infinite universes…. but only if T>0. Any use of this pretend negative time could not be modeled in any manner. Everything ever proposed on how the universe could be, has been, or will be is ALL mathematically possible (pretty cool) and able to be modeled in a computer…… but only if there was a T=0 (i.e., beginning).
LikeLike
June 17, 2013 at 2:43 am
Yes, our understanding of “stopped” is relative perceptive stagnation of object-to-surroundings. That’s what “stopped” means to us day-to-day. I’m perfectly happy if that’s what we all mean by “stopped” — I use that meaning of “stopped” all the time.
But that “relative stopped” cannot be equivocated with “ultimate stopped” that the Kalam fans demand must have been the case long ago.
I don’t think you appreciate the advantageous situation the opponent of the Kalam argument enjoys. The burden is on the god-provers to show why an “ultimate stopped” is necessary. The only thing I have to do propose that it is not necessary, and wait for a cogent reply, which never comes. An infinite sequence of cause and effect is perfectly plausible; there’s nothing that mandates an “ultimate stopped.”
My thesis: Our experience with various kinds of “relative stopped” lends absolutely nothing to the argument that an “ultimate stopped” is necessary.
I say this all as a Christian. The Kalam argument just doesn’t work. It’s a rubber-legged stool, standing only when not-sat-upon, and useful only for choir-preaching.
Finally, I don’t have a “T=-1 theory.” If you re-read what I wrote, I explicitly called imagining “T=-1” fallacious.
LikeLike
June 17, 2013 at 9:52 am
The kalam argument has nothing to do with motion, and everything to do with the temporal finitude of the universe. It’s about time, not motion.
An infinite sequence of cause and effect is not plausible. If the past was eternal, the present moment would never arrive because it’s impossible to traverse an infinite amount of time. It’s like trying to get to the top of an infinite staircase. It’s impossible. If one ever arrived, it would prove that it wasn’t truly infinite to begin with.
And then there is the impossibility of forming an infinite through successive addition. The amount of past time will always get bigger as you add one more moment to one more moment, but no matter how many moments you add, it will never transform itself from being super super super old to being infinitely old.
The kalam is on very good footing. The principle that everything which begins to exist requires a cause is about as basic as it gets, and all of the scientific evidence and powerful philosohical arguments argue for the past finitude of the universe.
Jason
LikeLike
June 17, 2013 at 4:40 pm
Jason, you said,
“It’s like trying to get to the top of an infinite staircase. It’s impossible.”
No, it isn’t. I can climb an infinite staircase by “having climbed infinite steps.”
Similarly, if I have a classroom with infinite chairs, I can fill every single one of those chairs merely by providing infinite students. No empty chair will be leftover, as counterintuitive as that is.
You said,
“The principle that everything which begins to exist requires a cause is about as basic as it gets”
But we do not know that anything began to exist. That’s the problem. We can say that an egg began to exist, but we know that every atom of which it’s composed already existed, and so really, it only began to exist in a metaphysical sense. Everything with which we are practically familiar did not “begin to exist” in a basic sense, at least not in our lifetimes.
There are scientific arguments for the finiteness of the universe, but they generally use “universe” as a subset of “existence.” Out of quantum fluctuations, they say, proceeded the universe. They nickname that fluctuating source “nothing,” even though it is something.
The philosophical arguments for the finiteness of the universe are exactly as powerful as what they afford themselves by means of assertive semantics, which we should agree is empirically impotent.
LikeLike
September 8, 2013 at 8:57 pm
There’s also the question of why our recorded past – human history – only goes back some 5,000 years. If we scour the literature of our historical past, we will see that our ancestors were, in fact, at least as wise as we are, if not much more so. Yet, human records do not take us back very far, do they? Surely humans were just as bright as we are “only” 5,000 years ago, and not plain stupid that they could not figure out to write and read.
How do atheists then deal with this fact?
Atheists are usually the first to embrace “Evolution’s” pseudoscience. How do they then account for this “sudden” jump to wisdom in humans, only about 5,000 years ago? And where oh where are all those intermediary survival nodes as evidence we got from A to Z? After all, they say, the world’s been around forever.
And, they should ask themselves, if they believe this Evolution hypothesis, where mutations breed species differentiation, why haven’t humans seen people with 3 or 5 eyes sometimes, to test their environmental advantage? Why isn’t a 6-legged human ever seen?
An atheist ‘s adamance is more important to him than science, logic or religious belief, anyhow, so with regard to them – it’s like talking to a wall.
LikeLike
October 23, 2013 at 11:20 am
[…] universe). Once again, Krauss would benefit from the help of philosophy, which demonstrates the absurdity of an actual […]
LikeLike
July 6, 2019 at 11:08 pm
@Stan
I think this is the only time I’ve seen you engage in extended discussion. You write:
This statement, along with the others you make in this thread, shows your unfamiliarity with the tradition you came out of: Catholicism.
This isn’t the argument from motion, and as Jason told you (and as you should have known) the Kalam does not argue from motion.
Aquinas doesn’t argue that because things are in motion, the “thing” must have “stopped” at some point. You should already know that Aquinas postulates an eternal universe arguendo.
Everything in motion is, by definition, changing, and everything that changes, again by definition, must have the capacity (potency) to change, else it could not change. The changing object plainly exists (is in act), else it would not be changing. So, everything that moves (changes) is a composite of potency and act. If the moving object has no passive potency, then it is Pure Act, and Pure Act, by definition, cannot be composed of material or metaphysical parts, which by logical consistency has all the attributes of God. Since matter is a composite of form/matter, substance/accidents, essence/existence (all examples of act/potency), its composition needs a cause for no composite can be the cause of itself (on pain of contradiction). Every composite is logically posterior to its components and thus stands in potency to its parts for its explanation.
Moreover, every composite of act/potency involved in a per se causal series has no causal efficacy by definition. Each composite component in the series is but an instrumental cause, not the efficient cause. Thus, the motion or change we observe in a per se causal series is NOT explained by that which has no causal efficacy. It can only be explained by an efficient cause, but if the “efficient cause” (scare-quoted because we’re not there yet) is itself an act/potency composite, then it lacks the causal efficacy to explain the series. The only explanation is in an actual efficient cause which itself is incapable of change and thus lacks any passive potency. Now, whether or not you agree with any of this is really irrelevant because you’ve expended considerable capital attacking the wrong argument. If you’re going to attack the argument from motion, you should at least attack the correct argument.
Aquinas wasn’t some drooling moron who didn’t consider the arguments you’re making. By observing the physical realm, he rightly concluded that God is the cause of all change and is thusly the only non-composite being whose explanation is in the necessity of His own essence. This isn’t pulled out of Athens; it’s from God’s word:
Romans 1
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
From the things God has made, we can understand God’s nature, that He is one, that there can be only one God, and He has all the attributes the Bible ascribes to Him.
LikeLike
July 7, 2019 at 11:10 pm
Since anything that changes must, by definition, have the capacity (potency) to change, and since no potency can raise itself to act, it follows that the reduction of potency to act must be by something in act.
To illustrate, Stan in Dallas is in act, but Stan is in potency to Paris. Stan in Paris does not actually exist, so Stan in Paris cannot actualize himself in Paris (nonsensical since he would have to exist in order to make himself exist and this is, of course, a straight logical contradiction). So, Stan in Dallas must actualize Stan in Paris by traveling there. A rubber ball is reduced by heat to a puddle of goo. The ball has the potential to be goo, but it is incapable of doing that itself. Something else in act must be responsible for actualizing the rubber’s potential for goo else the effect will not take place. That’s partly why Aquinas said that whatever is moved is moved by another.
Stan’s counter that logic doesn’t dictate a mover isn’t really a counter because Aquinas long ago acknowledged that arguendo. He was perfectly happy to agree that an accidental causal series could proceed to infinity, but that of course has nothing to do with his argument.
To argue that one composite object could be eternally moving without an efficient cause is nonsensical under A-T metaphysics. That would have to either affirm that a potency eternally raises itself to act (logically contradictory as shown above), or that the object is Pure Act. But since a composite being cannot be Pure Act, it has to have its potency for change actualized by something in act.
This is all carefully argued by Aquinas, so if somebody is going to take it upon himself to refute it, he should at least demonstrate that he understands it.
LikeLike