Home

I have always found this argument very unconvincing – even from a naïve logic point of view. It comes across so clearly as an argument skewed to support a preconceived belief. I know we all do this, but here it seems so obvious. I think this is a general problem with pure philosophical/logical arguments which don’t use or rely on the scientific ethos which insists on mapping against reality, evidential validation, to be kept honest.
The other problem common to logical arguments is that logic relies on “common sense” – which after all what evolution has selected us for. However “common sense” applies to “middle earth”. At the very large, very small, very energetic and very fast “common sense” breaks down. That is why, for example, the very well validated theories of special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics (which so much of our modern life depends on) are counter-intuitive. Nevertheless they provide a better picture of reality than our common sense does.

So – we can’t rely on philosophy/logic alone to understand reality – we must utilise science. That said – some comments from a scientific perspective:

1: Matter does “pop” into and out of existence at the subatomic level. Empty space is a lot more dynamic than we realise. Inflationary big bang models go a long way to explain the formation of matter and radiation (and low entropy) at the beginning of our local universe. The LHC will test for the existence of the Higgs and inflaton fields involved. In other words – we are getting a long way towards explaining the formation of our local universe without resorting to gods.

2: An infinite universe is counter-intuitive. A non-infinite universe is even more counter-intuitive. Infinity is not a real number so of course inappropriately applying mathematics to it produces silly results. Cosmologist Brian Greene said in 2004 (The Fabric of the Cosmos) (things may have changed since): “the flat, infinitely large spatial shape is the front-running contender for the large-scale structure of space-time.” Currently cosmologists talk about the possibility of a pre-existing universe which seeded ours (have a look at Roger Penrose’s lecture Before the Big Bang: Is There Evidence For Something And If So, What?) and they may have found evidence for it in the background microwave radiation (according to Saun Carroll and [maybe] to Penrose). Perhaps the universe is eternal with periodic big bangs which restore entropy to low values each time as suggested by inflationary theory.

3: George Lemaître, the Catholic priest astronomer who first proposed a “big bang” theory was clear that it had no religious implications. He, in fact, had to admonish Pope Pius XII who leapt on it as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith saying (rather mildly as was his manner: “As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God”
These things really are best discussed using scientific information. The picture that comes out of such discussion is fascinating – far better than any religious creation myth.

It comes across so clearly as an argument skewed to support a preconceived belief

I don’t see any circularity or religiously motivated premises. As a charge against the argument you statement is wholly unsupported with reasons.

this is a general problem with pure philosophical/logical arguments which don’t use or rely on the scientific ethos which insists on mapping against reality, evidential validation, to be kept honest

Actually, the second premise is tied to a particular cosmology which is scientifically validated (you can rightly question that cosmology with science).

logic relies on “common sense”

Logic is often used as a popular synonym for “common sense,” but logic is actually a highly sophisticated sub-branch of philosophy akin to mathematics. You might say that logic is “rules for right thinking.” Impugning the nature of the discipline is literally self defeating, especially from a scientific perspective which itself relies on logic.

So – we can’t rely on philosophy/logic alone to understand reality – we must utilise science.

That is self-refuting: clearly self-referencially incoherent. Is the above statement itself scientifically validated?

Eventually I may get to your points, one through three.

Your response is a bit confused – arguing that your logic does incorporate scientific knowledge (the big bang I assume) and then dismissing this requirement by defining it as “self-refuting” and “incoherent???

To ward off any attempt to present me as opposing logic – I don’t. But logic divorced from reality (and relying on “common sense” – which is divorced from most of reality) is not going to give the right answers – as will be shown by mapping ones logical results against reality. One could consider conservation laws – beautiful logic. The fact that the “common sense” version of these break down (as showing by mapping logical conclusion against reality provides the incentive to express these in a more abstract way to cover mater and energy together. We may have to repeat this again in the future. Something we just wouldn’t do by relying on logic alone.

If you accept this version of logic use (which you may not because after all your philosophical approach is not the same as mine) I think you the have to incorporate current scientific knowledge into you argument – along the lines of some of the things I have suggested.

Ken,

Your response is a bit confused – arguing that your logic does incorporate scientific knowledge (the big bang I assume) and then dismissing this requirement by defining it as “self-refuting” and “incoherent???

Stuart wasn’t justifying the second premise by appeal to cosmology. He was merely pointing out the error you made in criticizing the argument for being “purely logical” and not “relying on the scientific ethos which insists on mapping against reality, evidential validation, to be kept honest”. The argument does meet this standard; but this doesn’t mean he was agreeing that it needs to. On the contrary, as he points out, the standard you demand is arbitrary and unjustified as a benchmark for deciding good arguments from bad, and refutes itself.

But logic divorced from reality (and relying on “common sense” – which is divorced from most of reality) is not going to give the right answers – as will be shown by mapping ones logical results against reality.

Without knowing what “common sense” means in your view, it’s hard to comment. You seem to think that logic, in itself, is somehow divorced from reality. But of course, that’s patently absurd and self-refuting. Logic is a means to determine true conclusions given true premises. It supersedes science, since science relies on it.

One could consider conservation laws – beautiful logic.

I would suggest going away and taking an introductory course in logic before commenting here again. Despite my having explained this to you more than once, you still don’t appear to understand what logic is. The laws of conservation are not laws of logic. They are physical regularities represented as mathematical equations which we call laws.

I think you the have to incorporate current scientific knowledge into you argument

Current scientific knowledge is incorporated into this argument, so I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Regards,
Bnonn

Ken’s objections to the use of logic aside…

In the sprit of humility let me say beforehand, that I borrow heavily from Craig, I have no pretensions of being a scientist, and will give references where available for further examination of the matters involved.

Re 1:

Matter does “pop” into and out of existence at the subatomic level.

William Lane Craig lays out his reasons why this incorrect. Basically that is based on misunderstanding on the science involved. A) There are at least 10 different interpretations of the math that are deterministic, rather than the Copenhagen Interpretation which is indeterminate. Many physicists are dissatisfied with it and are investigating further so that is an assumption that is far from proven. B) On the Copenhagen Interpretation particles do not spring into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations in the sub-atomic vacuum, which constitutes an indeterministic cause of their origin. C) The same point can be made about the origin of the universe from the primordial vacuum. The sub-atomic vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy richly endowed with structure and subject to physical laws. Such models do not constitute a true origin ex nihilo.

Inflationary big bang models go a long way to explain the formation of matter and radiation (and low entropy) at the beginning of our local universe.

If you are trying to explain the formation of matter, radiation and low entropy by suggestion our ‘local’ universe is one of many, as in inflationary models, my first criticism is inflationary models are unduly metaphysical. Second, it goes against Ockham’s razor and posits explanations beyond necessity. Third, in 2003 Borde, Vilenkin and Guth showed that that there is good reason to think even inflationary models are not eternal in the past, and that there is no avoiding a cosmic beginning.

Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, “Inflation is Not Past-Eternal,” 4.
Alexander Vilenkin, “Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation,” 11.

Re 2:

(i) An infinite universe is counter-intuitive. (ii) A non-infinite universe is even more counter-intuitive. (numbers mine)

(i) Agreed. If we lived in an eternal universe that would mean that an infinite number of past events has preceded the current moment. In numbering those past events it doesn’t matter what number you are at, you can always add one more to the sequence. Such a sequence can always be added to so the sequence will always be finite. This means you would never arrive at the present moment, but since we are at the present moment the universe must have had a beginning.
(ii) You could say finite universe instead on non-infinite. In light of the reasons I gave above this appears false. You supply no reason or proof for your assertion. One research team, on the origin of the universe, says it “involves a certain metaphysical aspect which mat be either appealing or revolting.”1

1. Hubert Reeves, Jean Audoze, William A. Fowler, and David N. Schramm, “On the Origin of Light Elements,” Astrophysical Journal 179 (1973): 912.

Infinity is not a real number so of course inappropriately applying mathematics to it produces silly results.

Infinity is used in set theory to designate a set with an infinite number of members, such as {0, 1, 2, 3, 4 … }. If you mean by “not real” that infinity cannot exist, then I agree and thank you for confirming that first premise in the first philosophical argument for the beginning of the universe. If you mean that an infinite is an incoherent concept, then I disagree. Infinite set-theory is a highly developed and well-understood branch of mathematics, and as we can see the absurdities the would result that shows we do understand the notion of a collection with an actually infinite number of members.

Also, the second philosophical argument for the beginning of the universe does not rely upon the possible non-existence of an actual infinite, but that an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition. So the denying that the concept of an actual infinite is coherent or that an actual infinite exists does little in the way of refutation.

I might add also that these philosophical proofs are currently being employed by cosmologists and philosophers of science. They take these argument seriously due their strength and coherence.

G. F. R. Ellis, U. Kirchner, and W. R. Stoeger, “Multiverses and Physical Cosmology,” (2003) 14.
Rudiger Vaas, “Time before Time: Classification of Universes in contemporary cosmology, and how to avoid the antinomy of the beginning and eternity of the world.” (2004)

Re 3:

George Lemaître, the Catholic priest astronomer who first proposed a “big bang” theory was clear that it had no religious implications . . . “…It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God”

Well George Lemaître hadn’t read William Lane Craig on the subject. Little needs to be said in response, as he obviously didn’t have the Kalam Cosmological argument before him. Also just because one is an eminent scientist doesn’t make him good philosophy, which is what he is doing in the quote.

These things really are best discussed using scientific information. The picture that comes out of such discussion is fascinating – far better than any religious creation myth.

best discussed using scientific information… I’ve already called you on the scientism you have displayed above.

fascinating… I agree, as it gives us a small amount of the divine attributes that belong uniquely to God.

Religious creation myth… Lets not get ahead of ourselves. No one bought any mythology into the picture. Everything here was arrived at by logic, with the help of science. And lets not denigrate what (at least according to most cosmologists) proved to be accurate – that from nothing the universe had an ultimate beginning, literally springing into being a finite time ago.

In summation
The short refutations and hasty dismissals offered so-far are unworthy of the sophistication and power of the argument.

Basically I think we are talking past each other here. Probably because, as you said you have “no pretensions of being a scientist” and I have no pretensions, or desire, of being a Christian apologist. Hence we have different philosophies, different approaches to logic and differetn attitudes to humanity’s knowledge.

Just a few comments. “Real” numbers are those which arithmetic operations can be used on – not so for infinity.

Inflationary models are the most recent (in my understanding) models of big bang theory. While the standard model didn’t solve the problems of formation of matter and energy, inflation models go a long way towards this. They don’t necessarily) involve multi verses (which concept is not supported by the majority of people working in cosmology and theoretical physics) or a prior universe (although some may insist on a pre-existing highly disordered small amount of “matter” (about 10kg).

George Lemaître was, of course, a far greater authority on his original theory than is Craig.

Two general observation.

1: It’s noticeable that you rely on apologetics authors for you science information and interpretation. (Thanks for references regrading “historical science, by the way). You should really check out these with the original sources because the ones you use are notoriously opportunist. This can easily be shown with specific questions. I discussed in the comments section at Open Parachute the way that both Craig and Ross distorted the “fine tuning” of the cosmological constant. Ross even referenced Krauss who does a lot of this work and managed to distort his statement completely. This arose, of course, because both Craig and Ross have a strong subjective desire for the cosmological constant to be fine tuned. (briefly they claim a fine tuning of 1 part in 10^120 – Krauss states that the discrepancy between the naive theoretical value and the measured value is 1 part in 10^120. The actual value can be varied by several times t and still produce our universe).

Actually, I suggest you check out the cosmological constant story as an easy way of checking the reliability of your sources.

2: We are discussing difficult problems that scientists are working on and making amazing progress in. When I mention the current findings, theories and speculations you respond with (to me unconvincing) arguments to discredit the science. You do that because you have put your god firmly in this gap – more than as a place holder but as an eternal answer. Your inevitable response is to deny the science, you would like to prevent the ongoing science. That is why the god of the gap approach is a science stopper.

Fortunately for humanity we don’t stop our investigations because of your lectures. We get on and solve the problems – that is what humanity wants. In the process religion either learns that it no longer has an explanatory role in such mater – and therefore evolves to become less toxic, able to live in harmony with science yet still provide a service to those who require it. On the other hand the toxic religions continue to demand that science gives up its role, that humanity accepts their “revealed” “truth” rather the the demonstratively extremely effective scientific knowledge.

In the process they discredit their religion in the eyes of many, if not most, people – and end up as small sects which easily get involved in anti-human activity.

I am posting articles on “scientism” and the rationality of the universe next week at Open Parachute.

Ken,

I appreciate that we have different philosophies, but that is not to say both are equal. You say you have no pretensions or desire to be a Christian apologist, but that is not what is at stake. What is at stake here, is nothing more and nothing less than the truth. C. S. Lewis said “Good philosophy must exists, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” And I see in your replies notoriously bad philosophy. So have humility when it comes to philosophy, as I have when it comes to science, and let logic (right reasoning) lead us on.

“Infinity is not a real number” . . . “Real” numbers are those which arithmetic operations can be used on – not so for infinity.

Unfortunately your simplistic definition of a “real” number means that infinity is a real number. This wave-of-the-hand refutation is hard to take seriously. It seems to me you agree that an actual infinite set of things cannot exist because absurdities result, so therefore you would also agree to the first premise in the first philosophical argument for the beginning of the universe.

Inflationary models are the most recent (in my understanding) models of big bang theory. While the standard model didn’t solve the problems of formation of matter and energy, inflation models go a long way towards this. They don’t necessarily involve multi verses . . . or a prior universe . . .

This is also a point made to quickly made to take seriously. Inflationary models are popular to be sure, but do not represent the most “recent” theory. Quantum Gravity models and String scenarios have been proposed since the emergence of inflationary models in the early 80′s, but all these theorems graves have been dug, even if their bodies (the proponents and believers of the theorems) are not yet buried. The men with the spades are Alan Guth, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin, who after formulation of their theorem in 2003 managed to show that any universe, which has on average over its past history been in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have a space-time boundary.

After a doctorate in philosophy and thirty years of surveying the history of twentieth century cosmogony, Craig summarises;

The history of twentieth-century cosmogony has, in one sense, been a series of failed attempts to craft acceptable non-standard models of the expanding universe in such a way as to avert the absolute beginning predicted in the Standard Model. This parade of failures can be confusing to the layman, leading him mistakenly to infer that the field of cosmology is in constant flux, as new theories of the universe’s origin continually come and go, with no assured results. In fact, the Standard Model’s prediction of an absolute beginning has persisted through a century of astonishing progress in theoretical and observational cosmology and survived an onslaught of alternative theories. With each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories to avoid the absolute beginning of the universe predicted by the Standard Model, that prediction has been corroborated. It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model.

William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Third ed., (Wheaton, Il., Crossway, 2008) p. 139-140

George Lemaître was, of course, a far greater authority on his original theory than is Craig.

Craig is of course, a far greater philosopher than Lemaître. I don’t denigrate Lemaître’s science, but his philosophy. But weighing the intellectual might of the two won’t get us anywhere. What matters is the strength of each others arguments and Lemaître, so far as you have revealed, has only asserted his philosophical musings, and not provided any reason. If you want to advance Lemaître’s assertions you’ll have to give an argument as to why the beginning of the universe ex nihilo cannot be used in an argument for the existence of God.

Re general observation 1:

The cosmological constant is not under discussion here, but even if they have made a mistake regarding the cosmological constant (which I’m yet to be convinced of) in their other work that in no way impugns the authority of the apologetic sources in other matters, and in no way falsifies the above argument. As you do seem to be inexpert at basic logic I’ll point out that its the genetic fallacy to think that it does.

Re general observation 2:

We are discussing difficult problems that scientists are working on and making amazing progress in. When I mention the current findings, theories and speculations you respond with (to me unconvincing) arguments to discredit the science. You do that because you have put your god firmly in this gap – more than as a place holder but as an eternal answer. Your inevitable response is to deny the science, you would like to prevent the ongoing science. That is why the god of the gap approach is a science stopper.

WAIT ON!!! I responded with scientific oriented facts and quotes to argue for the beginning of the universe, the second premise in the Kalam Cosmological argument. There is no inappropriate placing God-in-the-gaps so far as that question is involved. This is a religiously neutral premise and God doesn’t enter into the equation until the conclusion in (3) when we look at the nature of the first cause.

Second, it is my distinct impression that the most current and persuasive scientific thought is that the universe is not eternal in the past and did have an absolute beginning ex nihilo, and that the best and latest science concludes that inflationary models only delay the beginning of the universe, not avert it entirely.

Third, I think it only appropriate to quote Craig again;

Of course, in view of the metaphysical issues raised by the prospect of a beginning of the universe, we may e confident that the quest to avert the absolute beginning predicted by the Standard Model will continue unabated. Such efforts are to be encouraged, and we have no reason to think that such attempts at falsification of the prediction of the Standard Model will result in anything other than further corroboration of its prediction of a beginning. While scientific evidence is always provisional, there can be little doubt in this case where the evidence leads.

William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Third ed., (Wheaton, Il., Crossway, 2008) p. 140

Fortunately for humanity we don’t stop our investigations because of your lectures. We get on and solve the problems – that is what humanity wants. In the process religion either learns that it no longer has an explanatory role in such mater –

Unfortunately for humanity it seems you’ll ignore (or wave away with faulty or poorly considered counter-arguments) a good argument (thus far unrefuted) for the sake of so-called scientific progress. I say “so-called” because Alexander Vilenkin himself has stated, inflationary models are unduly “metaphysical.” If so, that means its not a God-of-the-gap argument that features predominantly thus far in the discussion, but actually a highly-speculative-and-theoretical-metaphysics-(masquerading-as-science)-of-the-gap argument.

…and therefore [religions] evolves to become less toxic, able to live in harmony with science yet still provide a service to those who require it. On the other hand the toxic religions continue to demand that science gives up its role, that humanity accepts their “revealed” “truth” rather the the demonstratively extremely effective scientific knowledge.

Well I’m yet to see a piece of scientific evidence that refutes the truth of Christianity. Christianity is despite you assertions pro-science, and non-toxic to truth. In fact, in light of the faulty reasoning thus far exposed on this thread, I would say it seems your scientism is the toxic and harmful religious belief featured. In the case of the beginning of the universe from nothing that in fact confirms the truth of all the three monotheistic religions, and disconfirms all other world religions, so unless your complaining about the toxicity for Judaism, Islam and Christianity, your invective is groundless.

Discussion of infinity and real numbers is beside the point. But I was using the “real” in ther mathematical sense. Have a look a Wikipedial for real numbers, rational numbers and infinity. Quote from the latter: “In mathematics, “infinity” is often used in contexts where it is treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: “an infinite number of terms”) but it is a different type of “number” from the real numbers..”

I may replys to some of your other points later (currently the type face is extremely small so I will have to print and read.

However, I do have a post on the “scientism” charge tomorrow. One on the rational universe later in thee week and I am thinking of doing something on the apologists opportunist use of science (Craig and Ross) with a description of the example of “fine tuning”, cosmological constant/dark energy misrepresentation.

Can’t even read what I have written the font has got so small!

I may replys to some of your other points later (currently the type face is extremely small so I will have to print and read.

Hrmm, that’s odd. In most browsers you can hold down the ctrl key, and scroll the mousewheel backwards and forwards to increase and decrease font size.

I can zoom in to enlarge the font but only (currently) have this problem (which got quite bad) with this site. Whenever I went to a page it would show normally for a fraction of a second and then shrink drastically. I am using Firefox but maybe it’s a design fault at your end?

I really won’t get into a detailed refutation (and I am doing a series of posts at Open Parachute on what I consider are the important aspects anyway). I’ll also treat the personal denigration as a blustering tactic for avoiding or confusing the issues. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the discussion and the science – so will just try and restate that.

1: Big bang theories (which envisage a beginning for our universe 10 – 15 billion years ago are well accepted scientifically I am sure there are a few dissenters – as for example Stephan J. G. Gift, one of the signatories of the Discovery Insitute’s anti-evolution list (see Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”? – he also opposes Einsteinian relativity so is rather a maverick and I understand is treated like one). Like all real science (in contrast to dogma) these theories have evolved in the light of new evidence and mapping of ideas against reality. The currently accepted models are inflationary ones – they really do help to understand where the “big bang” came from – they put the bang into the theory. I suspect you have not understood my reference to the current inflationary big bang theories.

If you prefer to only believe apologetics sources (which is a silly attitude) then how about this from Reasons to Believe: “Now, all viable big bang models included an inflationary epoch. Past and future observations will continue to test various inflationary descriptions of the universe. RTB expects these tests to falsify those versions of inflation which contradict the biblical description and confirm some of the versions which support the biblical description.”

These theories don’t preclude a pre-universe (some may even require this – I don’t know) so there is definite interest in Penrose’s claim that we can find evidence of gravitation waves from the previous universe in the background microwave radiation of our current universe. Now that again is quite normal in science – new evidence, new ideas and new mapping against reality. Progress in this area will arise from the facts (Carroll suggests that the BMW patterns may have been confirmed) and no amount of assertion of religious dogma or vilification of the scientists or their evidence will stop that (we have come a long way since the inquisition).

I might add – it doesn’t worry me one way or the other – nor should it as I don’t have any ideological commitment requiring any specific solution.

It’s worth taking to heart the point you made in the GOG post “Advocates of the god-of-the-gaps argument often fail to understand what the theistic scientist or theologian means when they say ‘God did it.’ Most often the person is not a covering a gap of ignorance with a supernatural explanation but is expressing the wonder of God’s created order. Far from being a stopper or road-block to science it is a motivation for the theistic scientist to probe deeper into the mysteries of natural phenomenon.” I take that to mean that a theistic scientist can “believe” her “god did it” but this never stops her from doing the science to find our “how their god did it.” You seem to reinforce that point in your comments on primary and secondary causation. I suspect that was the ideological attitude of Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc.., scientists I worked alongside. After all – they could never do any science if they just relied on “god did it” as an explanation. Of course, for many, if not most, of the scientists I worked alongside the god question was never an issue.

If you stood by your quoted statement you would not be ruling various aspects of reality “out-of-bounds” for scientific research or so loosely throwing around the “scientism” label.

We are making progress in understanding the beginnings of our universe and I am confident we will make even more. This is only possible because we apply the scientific method. We are not going to get there by logic alone (especially if it is faulty for opportunist reasons). “God did it” is not the answer (it never is), but I am happy for people who wish to believe in a god to think of the research in terms of finding out “how their god did it.” That’s not a step I, or many like me, need – but I don’t require everyone else to have the same ideological or philosophical outlook I do.

Perhaps if you can appreciate this last point and recognise these differences are perfectly legitimate you would not feel the need for disparaging my abilities and contributions to these discussions. Neither would you feel the need to argue against the positions you imagined I have

Ken,

The god of the gaps argument you say is being employed here is not. The argument to restate it is

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The cause of the universe then, we can deduce has certain properties which when considered are properties identical to the traditional attributes of God.

This is chiefly a philosophical argument, and science is only used as auxiliary evidence to confirm the second premise, that the universe began to exist. Disagree with that science if you wish, or disagree with that second premise altogether if you wish.

-: The science I suggest be considered (the work of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin) manages to prove that inflationary models do not extend eternally in the past and only delay the beginning of the universe, not avert it entirely.

-: I made it clear in the article I was presenting the KCA as Craig presents it, so my quoting him is only consistent, and disparaging the source of the information, by claiming it is communicating poor science or that its opportunistic is (if not altogether false) the genetic fallacy. Moreover, the likes of Vilenkin, Hawking, Barrow and Tipler are not apologetic sources.

-:

Discussion of infinity and real numbers is beside the point.

On the contrary this was on topic as the coherence of the concept of infinity is important for the two philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe. Claiming infinity is not a “real” number according to mathematical theory on wikipedia still doesn’t do anything to the argument as infinity is the set of real numbers, in the case of the universe, all the natural numbers, ie. {1, 2, 3, 4, … } There’s nothing incoherent about the concept per se, and that’s why these philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe are taken so seriously.

-: So altogether we have good grounds for considering the second premise true, and if doubt remains, then at least we can say it is more probable that its contradictory, which renders the conclusion more probable than its contradictory, which renders atheism (the belief that there is no god, or the non-belief in any god) less rational than theism.

“1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. “
This is a rather trivial argument – and certainly doesn’t lead to a god. After all, the evidence suggests the current inflationary big bang model of the formation of the universe – (point 2) and we can (partly) understand the cause – formation of matter and radiation) as a result of field interactions at the end of the inflationary period. This suggests further investigations and experiments (eg. looking for the Higgs particle at the LHC). And so on – a huge amount of fascinating work.

No “explanation”, hypothesis and future work come out of the crude statement “god did it”?? You don’t even bother to ask “how did god do it?” Until you do it remains a GOG argument and a science stopper. In fact you make that aim clear by denying science any role in this work (fortunately for humanity non-one listens to you on that).

“-: The science I suggest be considered (the work of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin) manages to prove that inflationary models do not extend eternally in the past and only delay the beginning of the universe, not avert it entirely.” - you will have to clarify this. I suggest you give me proper references and explain your point. Links would be useful but I am capable of hunting down peer reviewed papers (and checking out the context of any quote). I enjoy searching for and considering real evidence.

Alan Guth was of course the originator of inflation theory – and recent findings only seem to confirm inflation with more and more accuracy. Something I understand he is happy about. So I am keen to understand what he thinks of recent (within the last year) information derived from the background microwave radiation which suggests evidence fro gravitational waves from a previously existing universe.

Going to the actual sources of information, to scientists actively involved with research, participating in the scientific community, undergoing peer review, etc., is to me the only really acceptable way of supporting the scientific arguments here. Craig doesn’t qualify – and as I have said, he takes a demonstratively opportunist approach to the information.

The second premise may well be true – after all hardly any modern cosmological scientists denies big bang cosmology. But our universe can have a beginning, and at the same time be part of a wider, perhaps eternal universe, which may go through periodic bangs of one sort or another. Modern cosmology is certainly open to this idea and investigates the hypothesis where it can.

you will have to clarify this.

I take it that the universe is all there is – that is all matter, all space, all time, and all energy – and that is what I mean when I say “the universe.” So I’m quite happy to accept we live in an inflationary universe, as long as it is verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, is concordant with empirical discoveries, is philosophically coherent and outstrips rival theories in comparative superiority.

As an aside, a brief word on philosophical coherence: Part of being philosophically coherent will entail a beginning of the universe (above definition) based on the above arguments. It matters not if you measure the past by seconds, minutes, hours, or the units you use are the same size of the elapsed time of the universe, it remains true that every event must have an antecedent, and that if this string of antecedents stretches into eternity we would have never been able to reach the present moment. For counting backwards from infinity to the present moment is the same as counting forwards into the infinite future – you’ll never reach it. Therefore it is more philosophically coherent to think that there was a cosmic beginning. As Vilenkin would point out, it is also the best “sceintific” cosmogonical conclusion as well.

No “explanation”, hypothesis and future work come out of the crude statement “god did it”

The possibility of future work is irrelevant to the truth of any explanation. “God did it” is clearly an explanation. What I think you want to say is ‘”God did it” is not a satisfactory explanation,’ but your satisfaction is also irrelevant to the truth of any explanation. If your charge that we are using a God-of-the-gaps argument is going to stick, you need to explain why your not also positing scientism-in-the-gaps. To help explain I’m going to take the liberty of quoting myself commenting on your blog about scientism.

. . . you’d have to explain how any scientific explanation can be given when science only investigates natural phenomenon that is a part of the universe, and the cause of the universe and the initial conditions just given in the Big Bang are antecedent to the universe itself. It seems to me that science has no way it could ever answer those questions, considering its bounds. Unless you are suggesting that the universe caused itself, which to me is obviously ridiculous.

I say ridiculous because to be able to cause ones own existence you’d need to pre-exisit your own existence.
I say the “the initial conditions just given in the Big Bang” assuming a Standard Big Bang model, which you say hardly any modern cosmological scientist deny.

Works already cited here already;
Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, “Inflation is Not Past-Eternal,” (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012) 2003
Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006).
Alexander Vilenkin, “Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation,” (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204061) 2002

Craig doesn’t qualify

Craig studied cosmology as a part of his doctoral thesis in the 70′s. He has also kept abreast of the developments in the field since, is reported to be in the top 1% of philosophers today, Christian or otherwise, and so I fail to see how he doesn’t qualify. Unless you mean he should be excluded because of his apologetic agenda, which is again the genetic fallacy.

OK – have got the two papers. Now what was the point you were making with them? That the papers claim that there could not theoretically be a pre-universe?

Craig is not actively researching cosmology, having to experientially validate theory or submit to peer critique/review. The normal scientific process. I always find the scientific sources where individuals undergo this process – as the most reliable source. Even people with a background suffer from the unreliability problem when they are no longer in the scientific community and involved in research. I see that as the reason (rather than just outright dishonesty) why Hugh Ross also gets the “fine-tuning” of the cosmological constant/dark energy wrong – despite an initial career in astronomy.

I say this with some authority because having retired four years ago I am very conscious of how out of contact one becomes without the community and practice. I could easily get work providing private consulting in my speciality to companies but I would not be confident of the reliability. In these cases companies are usually only after a scientific name for product endorsement anyway. This situation seems to be common with the climate change deniers.

Craig may have skill in philosophy, debate and logic – but he has to rely on the scientists for the science and he demonstratively can get this wrong (as in at least the dark energy case – most probably others). He is also highly motivated to take an opportunist approach in his logical arguments.

“Scientism” of the gaps is just silly. If we propose (and we inevitably will and do) a scientific theory to explain the formation of matter and radiation – being scientific it is inevitably based on evidence, offers processes for experiential validation, is open to deeper understanding, changes and rejection. The never-ending process of scientific exploration. The god of the gaps is just that – the explanation stops there. No validation. No changes, deeper development or understanding. No possibility for change or rejection. Unless you go on to ask “how did god do this?” and set about investigating that question – you have a science stopper. Science is never a science stopper.

Most cosmologists do deny the standard big bang model – science having moved on to the inflationary models (and they will no doubt move on to a more complete and powerful model in the future).

By the way – I can be philosophical coherent about my granddaughter. I can say she exists (1), she had a beginning (2) therefore she had a cause (3). I can then go on to understand that cause. Nowhere do I have to demand that “god did it” was the cause or deny the existence of other beings, parents, grandparents, etc.

Logic is easily manipulated isn’t it.

Hi Ken.

Craig is not actively researching cosmology, having to experientially validate theory or submit to peer critique/review. The normal scientific process. I always find the scientific sources where individuals undergo this process – as the most reliable source. Even people with a background suffer from the unreliability problem when they are no longer in the scientific community and involved in research

Since you aren’t actively researching cosmology yourself, it would appear your own criteria invalidate any testimony you may give in opposition to Craig. If you disagree with his conclusions, having read the same papers as him, why should I take your word over his?

Craig may have skill in philosophy, debate and logic – but he has to rely on the scientists for the science and he demonstratively can get this wrong (as in at least the dark energy case – most probably others). He is also highly motivated to take an opportunist approach in his logical arguments.

Since you yourself also have to rely on the scientists for the science, I am rather more inclined to trust someone with skills in philosophy and logic over someone like yourself, since all other things are evidently equal. It goes without saying that you are just as motivated to take an “opportunistic” approach with your treatment of the facts, since you are by no means less ideologically motivated than Craig is. Excluding your own prejudice is merely question-begging or special pleading. On that topic…

“Scientism” of the gaps is just silly. If we propose (and we inevitably will and do) a scientific theory to explain the formation of matter and radiation – being scientific it is inevitably based on evidence, offers processes for experiential validation, is open to deeper understanding, changes and rejection. The never-ending process of scientific exploration. The god of the gaps is just that – the explanation stops there. No validation. No changes, deeper development or understanding. No possibility for change or rejection. Unless you go on to ask “how did god do this?” and set about investigating that question – you have a science stopper. Science is never a science stopper.

Of course, Stuart has on several occasions commented on how godditit is not a science stopper unless it is being offered as the same kind of explanation as science provides. That being said, however far back you want to go in the formation of the universe, eventually you are going to get to the point of pure speculation, where there is no evidence to base your theories on. Positing a scientific explanation at this point is scientism; it is by definition an ideological, philosophical, religious assumption; not a scientific one.

Moreover, this point is utterly irrelevant to the argument in question, since Stuart has already defined the “universe” of which the Kalam argument speaks as “all there is—that is all matter, all space, all time, and all energy”. All you’re doing is pushing the argument back a step or two. We’ve already excluded an eternal universe on both logical and scientific grounds. So eventually you are going to get to the point where there must be a cause for everything which exists. You can keep trying to hide that by pushing it back as far as you can; but it doesn’t change the fact. You’re just avoiding the argument; you aren’t refuting it.

By the way – I can be philosophical coherent about my granddaughter. I can say she exists (1), she had a beginning (2) therefore she had a cause (3). I can then go on to understand that cause. Nowhere do I have to demand that “god did it” was the cause or deny the existence of other beings, parents, grandparents, etc.

I don’t see your point. Your grand-daughter isn’t the universe; she is a part of it. Your example suggests that you don’t actually understand the argument at all. Let me reiterate it for you, with annotation:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. I presume we take this as uncontroversial.

2. The universe, namely all matter, energy, space, and time—in other words, everything contingent which exists, whether in this current inflationary period or some other—began to exist. This is a matter of logical and scientific necessity.

3. Therefore, the universe has a non-material, non-energetic, non-spatial, non-temporal cause (this follows necessarily; if you posit a material, energetic, spatial, or temporal cause you are denying (2) by definition).

What part of the argument do you disagree with, and why?

1: OK, Stuart. I have read the 2 papers. They don’t support your opposition to the possibility of a prior universe. In fact, they specifically state that the conditions of their theorem may be satisfied by several models which include this possibility.

Their is no argument about our current universe having a beginning. Just about the possibility of what came before that – an area where their is tantalising new evidence from the last few months.

As I said – I have no preference one way or the other – it’s not, after al,, my field of expertise. But I assert it is a fallacy to rule out such possibilities with a “logical” argument – without any reference to reality.

Of course this doesn’t rule out a role for your god. Such an advanced intelligent being in the previous universe could have created our current universe (as the science fiction story Cosm). Or, she could have created the previous universe (and the ones that came before that?). A sensible religion would steer away from dogmatically asserting anything about the formation of our universe because they can well be proven wrong in the near future.. Of course a sensible religion would steer away from attempting to displace science and advance explanations anyway – the point Father Coyne made in the interview on my recent blog post (“Scientism” in the eyes of the beholder).

2: An interesting point tough, after your tirade against “scientism” and your claim that science cannot investigate the formation of the universe. You then go ahead and use as evidence for a position you have – scientific publication dealing with these very topics. Publications which include assertions such as “The picture that emerged from this line if development that a small closed universe can spontaneously nucleate out of nothing, where by ‘nothing’ I mean a state with no classical space and time” etc., etc.

I applaud you for at least making reference to scientifc ideas in this area but aren’t you, yourself, not guilty of “scientism”?

Dominic – no one is arguing that there is no cause for things – just pointing out that it is silly to then impose a cause without evidence or understanding. Scientific investigations and speculations do produce structured ideas about the formation of our universe (much better than “god did it” and similar creation stories of mythologies). These lead to hypotheses which can, at least in principle, be tested. Some of these will be in the next few years at the LHC.

I can explain the cause of my granddaughter – at this stage science can explain a hell of a lot about the formation of the universe (back to at < 10^-36 of a second ABB). To me that is amazing and it does suggest a fair bit of confidence that we will understand further back – possibly even to time before the big bang. The new information coming out of the background MW radiation may be giving us data already.

Dominic – I am not asking you to rely on me for information. Quite correctly you know that my ignorance in this area may be similar to Craig’s and I may be as ideologically motivated and selective as he is. What I am saying is that the reliable thing to do is to go back to the scientists actually doing the work, validating their ideas against reality and undergoing the social critique and review of the rest of the scientific community. That is what I try to do and suggest that you should also – unless you are satisfied with predigested material aimed at fitting into your own prejudices (let’s face it many people are).

If you check out what Craig and Ross say about the cosmological constant/dark energy “fine tuning” and what someone like Krauss (actively working in this area) says you will see that Craig and Ross are misinforming you about the science. Their philosophy and logic has not helped there. But, I assert, the preconceived beliefs and prejudices are the reasons why they have , knowingly or unknowingly, misrepresent the science – in this case at least.

Hi Ken. All that said, the argument still stands. We’ve clarified that it may have been the case that “this” universe came out of another; but if we broaden the definition of “universe” to include all possible prior universes; all spacetime and matter-energy; the argument still stands. It therefore remains a successful proof of God’s existence.

Regards,
Bnonn

I hope Stuart agrees with you Bnonn – he has been driving that criticism of my science-based points.

Now we just have to consider the fact that on the one hand science is making progress at understanding how a universe comes about (this one, sister ones, previous ones). This is leading to hypotheses which produce testable things (like the Higgs and inflaton fields). All things we can develop mathematical descriptions of, structured speculations, etc.

Alongside that you want to put a bronze-age myth??? Other cultures have just as good creation myths so it is an outcome of your personal history (you are in a Christian community) that you advocate this particular myth.

Your logic may drive you to your own pet conclusion – but it is very much a confirmation of your bias, is not open to evidence or testing. It is therefore faulty logic – as it must be if it doesn’t refer to, and isn’t informed by, reality.

I don’t buy it. Cosmologists don’t buy it (otherwise why their research). Those who do buy it face the ultimate outcome of the GOG – stopping science. And they are satisfied with the arrogance of ignorance.

Ken, you aren’t listening. I’m going to need to ask you to stick to the topic instead of going off on these irrelevant tangents all the time. Here it is again:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe, namely all matter-energy and space-time—in other words, everything contingent which exists, whether in this current inflationary period or some other—began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a non-material, non-energetic, non-spatial, non-temporal cause.

What part of the argument do you disagree with, and why?

#3 – One doesn’t define things before investigating them. How about considering this speculative comment from one of Stuart’s papers “The picture that emerged from this line if development that a small closed universe can spontaneously nucleate out of nothing, where by ‘nothing’ I mean a state with no classical space and time” etc., etc. At least it has come out of investigation.

I don’t understand your objection. (3) follows necessarily from (2) and (1) via modus ponens. What do you consider undefined?

Ken,

…speculative comment from one of Stuart’s papers

This is a misnomer. Not my paper, but a paper presumable which I gave a reference to. You should also reference properly. I suppose this quote is taken from a paper that I quoted to substantiate the scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe? Its unclear to me the point you think your making by quoting this speculation.

You objection to #3 is rather poor. I think the root problem is your stuck with a scientists mentality when this is chiefly a philosophical argument. Second, it doesn’t matter how, say “matter,” is defined. Whatever you think matter is, the cause of matter cannot be that, and so the cause of matter is immaterial. A lack of definition doesn’t dent the argument in any way.

One can go away an investigate what these things are – this argument doesn’t stop anyone. But as most people do (I think) understand what material, energy, space, and time are, without having sophisticated scientific definitions for them, I don’t see how lack of definition or investigation constitutes a refutation of the argument.

I am having trouble seeing how, through this syllogism, we arrive at the conclusion that God created the universe (since theists use this argument as a proof of god’s existence). Even if the conclusion, the universe has a cause, is true it doesn’t say anything about what that cause is. If we attribute that to God then isn’t that defaulting the unknown to the “god did it” answer and jumping the gun?
If this syllogism accomplishes anything it is that the conclusion has inductive strength but that is all. Inductive strength is that the conclusion is probable given the premises. This is hardly convincing considering that many things which are very probable turn out be wrong. In an age where people are seeking concrete proofs one way or the other probability falls a little short. In the end the conclusion, logically speaking, is just logically indeterminate.

Hi Joe. I agree that the Kalam argument does not prove the existence of the Christian God. However, it does prove that the cause of the universe is something immaterial and eternal. Craig would also argue that it proves that this immaterial and eternal thing is a mind; Stuart could fill you in on his inference there, I’m sure. So it’s certainly a powerful argument for, at least, the Big Three—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. And of course, arguments like these aren’t typically considered in isolation. There are many, many other evidences for the Christian faith which, cumulatively, build into an extremely strong case; even if all you’re doing is arguing from natural theology.

Regards,
Bnonn

Jo, the argument concludes that the universe had a cause. At first blush, I agree that doesn’t sound so impressive. Isn’t it meant to prove the existence of God?

First a word on what is meant by “prove.” If what is meant by prove is that it is with concrete certainty (which I take to mean absolute or with mathematical certainty) then I would say no. The strength of the conclusion is the strength of its premises and I don’t think we attain that very high standard. I think we can prove very few things with that type of concrete certainty. Nevertheless, it is entirely rational to believe some things to be true, even though we have no good arguments for them. Beliefs like, the world was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age, with the breakfast that you didn’t eat in your stomach and the false memories implanted in your brain. Most of our decisions are not based on absolute mathematical type certainty, but on high probability so that we live not realising the huge assumptions we make each day. For instance the bridge we drive across to get to work – we don’t even consider it worth thinking about whether it will crack and collapse while we are on it. We don’t have absolute certainty, but we do have good reason to think that it won’t.

If what we mean by prove is that we have an argument that is both logically valid and has true premises that we know to be at least more probable than their contradictories, then the KCA is indeed a proof. I take it that those are the criterion for a good argument.

Second, a word on what the argument shows us. As the universe is all there is – all matter and all time, all space and energy, then the cause of the universe will have to transcend those things. Therefore, we can say that the cause of the universe is immaterial, spaceless and timeless. If it is immaterial and timeless it is unchanging. If it caused all matter, and energy to exist it is tremendously powerful. If it is timeless and unchanging it is beginningless and uncaused, therefore necessary. And there are about three auxiliary arguments that show that this first uncaused cause must be personal. One is that the only thing that philosophers can think of that is both immaterial and timeless are shapes, propositions, numbers, and minds. But the only thing that that is not causally impotent is a mind, and therefore the cause of the universe must be a mind.

So the argument doesn’t prove that God exists. It shows us the nature of the cause of the universe. And it’s striking to see how many of these attributes are in accord with the very concept of God in the three monotheistic traditions. As Bnonn said, to prove the Christian God we’d then go on to consider other arguments, but the KCA gives us a good start.

Thank you very much for your response! I appreciate the safe environment that is here to raise questions and doubts without being ‘intellectually’ bullied. Another question I have is:

“One is that the only thing that philosophers can think of that is both immaterial and timeless are shapes, propositions, numbers, and minds.”

Is it possible that there is other possibilities or explanations. At one point in history it was commonly accepted and taught that the earth was flat which people tried to support with science and philosophy as much as they could back then. The prospect of the earth being round was strange and hard to prove. Is it possible that whatever is behind the universe escapes explanation until we know more about it? I believe that everyone is intitled to their own opinions but not to their own truths. G \/ -G Either there is a God or it is not the case that there is a God. It seems like there is a lot of assumptions one has to hold to on either side of this truth functionally true distinctive.

Hey Joe. Stuart may be better qualified to address this, since he’s studied these arguments in more depth, but here’s how I’d answer your question off the top of my head.

1. The cause of the universe, being immaterial and necessary, is either (i) an abstract object, (ii) a mind, or (iii) something else of which we cannot conceive.
2. Abstract objects are causally inert, ruling out (i).
3. On the other hand, abstract objects are necessary (by nature).
4. And abstract objects prima facie seem to exist in minds (it’s hard to see how propositions, for example, can exist anywhere else).
5. Given the necessary existence and infinite nature of abstract objects (for example, the set of natural numbers is infinite), then prima facie they entail a necessary and infinite mind in which to exist.
6. Thus, a necessary and infinite mind exists, making (ii) very probable.
7. Given the existence of a necessary and infinite mind, it seems very reasonable to suppose that it is the cause of the universe. Conversely, it seems unreasonable to postulate some other cause, even if only on the basis of the principle of parsimony. Thus (iii) is improbable.
8. Furthermore, since we cannot even conceive of what another cause for the universe would be like, it’s an empty postulate, making (iii) essentially meaningless.

No doubt there are other considerations; these are just the ones that occur to me at present.

Either there is a God or it is not the case that there is a God. It seems like there is a lot of assumptions one has to hold to on either side of this truth functionally true distinctive.

Indeed. The issue is which set of assumptions is more justified. In my view, an extremely solid case can be made for the assumptions entailed by Christian theism, and against the assumptions of any other worldview.

Regards,
Bnonn

Refering to Bnonn’s proposal :“1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

3. Therefore, the universe has a non-material, non-energetic, non-spatial, non-temporal cause.”

Clearly I shouldn’t have reacted so quickly because there seems to be a difference between Bnonn and Stuart on the possible existence of a pre-universe. I was referring to the papers Stuart referenced because they specifically didn’t exclude a pre-universe, whereas Stuart had given them as evidence to exlude this possibility.

However, to deal with Bnonn’s proposal.

Point 2: We know pretty confidently that our local universe had a beginning. We have some idea of its cause and we continue work in this area. All made possible by science (which Stuart wants to exclude for this investigation). However, there is still the possibility (and we may now have evidence for this from the background MWR) that our universe came out of a pre-existing universe. This does raise the possibility of cycling models, etc. We may just be one universe amongst a whole succession. The whole arrangement (cosmos, say) may therefore stretch backward eternally. Empirical knowledge on whether the cosmos is eternal or not seems to me an extremely long way off – even if only the reinstatement of low entropy at the formation of each universe would cause the loss of most information.
So- I can’t, with any confidence, agree with point 2 with respect to the cosmos – although the scientific consensus is that it is true for our local universe.

Point 3: This is of course laden with ideological assumptions. You and I disagree on what is meant by material, matter, for example. Scientifically we should not start with any such prejudice and simply follow the evidence. Currently there are ideas of how matter and radiation arose (I quoted one from the papers that Stuart referenced).

This whole area is of course extremely complex and well outside any logic based on “common sense”. We have to extend our knowledge of the physics involved in these areas. When we say the “laws of nature break down” here we are not saying that the beginning of the universe is not rational or capable of being understood. The laws are representations of human knowledge – as we extend our understanding we will develop “laws of nature” for this time period and conditions.

So, I can’t see any value in this little exercise in logic (points 1, 2 & 3). One has to be informed by reality to reach a proper understanding. That is what we are investigating but there is still a long way to go. Both Bnonn and Stuart reveal the direction they want to go in their relies to Joe – but, of course, it also reveals an opportunist use of the logic – and a refusal to include consideration of real evidence.

Hi Ken.

The whole arrangement (cosmos, say) may therefore stretch backward eternally.

No, remember we’ve precluded this on both logical and scientific grounds already. Moreover, even if you argue that the logical argument from infinity is moot—say by postulating a timeless cosmos prior to the beginning of the local universe (which of course you’d need evidence for)—and even if you can refute the science which demonstrates that a cyclic cosmos must still have a beginning at a finite point in the past, you still run aground on the principle of sufficient reason. Premise (2) of the Kalam argument is easily bolstered by the ancillary argument from necessity.

This is of course laden with ideological assumptions. You and I disagree on what is meant by material, matter, for example. Scientifically we should not start with any such prejudice and simply follow the evidence.

This is a red herring. As has been pointed out, regardless of the ultimate nature of matter-energy or space-time (let’s just lump all those things under the heading “cosmos”), the cause of these things cannot be the things themselves. Ie, the cause of the cosmos is something not the cosmos; it is something which does not have the properties of the cosmos. Regardless of how we conceive matter-energy and space-time, it remains that the cause of them is something which is not constituted of matter-energy and does not exist in space-time.

This whole area is of course extremely complex and well outside any logic based on “common sense”.

I don’t know why you keep talking about common sense. I don’t think either Stuart or myself have made any claim that the Kalam argument entails reliance on common sense—whatever that even is. The argument relies on two premises, which are either true or false. If they’re false, then you should be able to demonstrate it. However, since they are in fact true, the argument is sound and the conclusion does indeed constitute a proof of an eternal, necessary, immaterial cause for the universe.

Both Bnonn and Stuart reveal the direction they want to go in their relies to Joe – but, of course, it also reveals an opportunist use of the logic – and a refusal to include consideration of real evidence

I’m sorry Ken, but this is simply character assassination. You constantly troll on about opportunism, and draw a false dichotomy between logic and reality or ideology and truth. But in fact, it’s you who’s being very opportunistic here, isn’t it? You’re the one who uses logic when it suits you, but rejects it when it doesn’t. You’re happy to use logic as long as it’s supporting your science, and giving you conclusions you like. You call that “evidence”. But as soon as you come across some argument that you have difficulties with, you are quick to dismiss the logic as “not mapping against reality”, and refuse to consider it to be evidence. Of course, you’ve been using logic all along to decide what “reality” is, and to do this process of “mapping”. Logic either works, or it doesn’t. If it works, it’s equally valid in this argument as in when it’s used to support science. This argument equally constitutes “evidence” as any scientific one. And if logic doesn’t work here, then science is just as worthless as the Kalam argument for providing evidence of anything. So make up your mind and stop being so silly.

Regards,
Bnonn

Joe,

I know what you mean by intellectual bulling, being on the receiving end myself on occasion. Thanks for your question.

Is it possible that there is other possibilities or explanations. . . . Is it possible that whatever is behind the universe escapes explanation until we know more about it?

At first I thought it is at least possible that the first cause could be something else other that what I conceive to be God, like something else that entirely escapes explanation. But lets remember that the argument being referred to in the above quote was for a personal cause of the universe. So on further reflection I think it is impossible that the first cause of the universe can completely escape explanation, for we have already uncovered several other attributes of the first cause.

Either there is a God or it is not the case that there is a God

Similarly, either the first cause of the universe is personal or it isn’t. Bnonn’s argument is good – if abstract objects like numbers exist. My own thought is that abstract numbers do not exist, but if they do exist, they exist in a mind. So a necessary mind that transcends the universe is all there is that can cause the universe. Let alone that a mind is the only thing that is causally potent.

The other argument for a personal cause of the universe is a little complicated, but the result comes to the cause of the universe made a choice, and a choice is an attribute of personal beings.

Ken,

You are starting to repeat arguments already refuted. Here are some extra points that Bnonn has not pointed out.

. . . there seems to be a difference between Bnonn and Stuart on the possible existence of a pre-universe. I was referring to the papers Stuart referenced because they specifically didn’t exclude a pre-universe, whereas Stuart had given them as evidence to exlude this possibility.

I give those papers as evidence to exclude the possibility of a beginningless universe / pre-universe / cosmos. For clarity: the best evidence I believe points to the creation of our current universe out of nothing, before which there was no pre-universe. That is a point I take it we disagree on, Ken. However, even if there is a pre-universe, the best evidence, again I believe, for which the quotes I gave from that papers I referred to show, that no pre-universe or any amount of prior-universes extend back into the infinite past.

For further clarity, I again quote Vilenkin.

“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.”

Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), p. 176.

All made possible by science (which Stuart wants to exclude for this investigation)

I made it clear that it is on the standard Big Band Model that science cannot speak to the cause of our universe. For on the Standard Big Bang Model, we truly have an origin of the universe ex nihilo. Saying science can discover the cause of the universe (assuming the Standard Big Bang model) is like saying “Science, which only investigates nature, will investigate the cause of all nature.” The problem is the cause of nature must be beyond all nature, unless somehow nature pre-existed its own existence in order to cause its own existence – which of course is ridiculous.

The laws are representations of human knowledge – as we extend our understanding we will develop “laws of nature” for this time period and conditions.

The laws of nature underlie the working of the universe irrespective of human knowledge of them. So when I say the “laws of nature breakdown” I’m talking about the actual laws themselves, not our knowledge of them. I think you’ve got a real problem in comprehending the singularity (again on the Standard Big Bang Model). The singularity is “a point of infinite density,” Such that the distance between any one point and any other = 0. Therefore the universe, at the singularity, literally does not exist. Given that there is no nature to speak of, there are no laws of nature. Scientists fail to realise the vast metaphysical chasm between being and non-being.

Bnonn – what scientific ground have you presented to refute a cosmos, composed of individual universes, which may stretch back eternally? I would love to see this as I certainly haven’t come across anything myself.

I see that Stuart and Bnonn do disagree as Stuart still wants to “exclude the possibility of a beginning less universe / pre-universe / cosmos.” He was wrong to provide references to Vilenken’s papers for this because they specifically do not exclude those possibilities.

I think Stuart is confusing the concept of our current universe having a beginning with a cosmos composed of universes coming into existence over a much longer period – perhaps eternally. Your quote from Vilenkin indicates this because it clearly applies to our local universe. I think Stuart is wanting to carry over the beginning of our universe to a beginning of the cosmos in general – without evidence and therefore as an argument ploy. I am sorry, one should not distort evidence just because you want to use a specific position in an argument. One should at least be clear about, and state as assumptions, the provisional assumptions used and be clear about the limitations of any model that results.

I have clearly said I have no real philosophical preferences for either model – it’s just that recent evidence does suggest a universe before ours and that opens up a whole can of worms – including an eternal cosmos possibility. Evidence (not “logical” propositions) to the contrary willingly accepted.

Science investigates reality – not nature (which people define in all sorts of ways) and the formation of the universe is a real event – therefore something that science can and does investigate. Stuart – do you find repugnant Vilenkin’s summary: “The picture that emerged from this line of development that a small closed universe can spontaneously nucleate out of nothing, where by ‘nothing’ I mean a state with no classical space and time” And Bnonn – does your point 2 exclude that “nothing”? How do you define “nothing” – “matter”, “energy,” “space-time”?? How do you envisage including this “nothing” (obviously a very important “nothing”) into you logical propositions?? (You probably can’t conceive of this “nothing” – one reason I argue that “common sense” logic is useless on such questions). Perhaps your statement that “the cause of these things cannot be the things themselves” really can’t be applied here? Doesn’t Vilenkin’s comment (and similar comments from other cosmologists and theoretical physicists) indicate that science is investigating this issue, making progress, and (importantly) all without taking your criticisms or “logic” into account?

Can you answer those questions as you seem strangely silent on Vilenkin’s statement which I would have thought central to the whole argument.

Stuart – you and I are using “laws of nature” in entirely different ways. I think your use is inappropriate, but let’s go with it. If you mean that the universe has no rationality before 10^-35 sec (or perhaps 10^-48 sec) – then where is your evidence for that? Surely you can’t have any evidence when the best minds and researchers in theoretical physics and cosmology are still coming to grips with that area. This is one area we must say (if we are honest) “I don’t know.” And of course humanity (minus you, of course) insists that we add “But let’s find out!”

Stuart said,

My own thought is that abstract numbers do not exist, but if they do exist, they exist in a mind.

Yeah, you’ve been reading too much Craig and not enough other Christian philosophers (: As far as I can tell, Craig’s position is really rather odd, as Christian views on abstracta go. He seems to be a nominalist at both the divine and the created level. I’d recommend Greg Welty’s examination of theistic conceptual realism, which places nominalism at the divine level but conceptual realism at the created level.

Then Ken said,

Bnonn – what scientific ground have you presented to refute a cosmos, composed of individual universes, which may stretch back eternally? I would love to see this as I certainly haven’t come across anything myself.

See Vilenkin.

I think Stuart is confusing the concept of our current universe having a beginning with a cosmos composed of universes coming into existence over a much longer period – perhaps eternally. Your quote from Vilenkin indicates this because it clearly applies to our local universe.

No Ken, as Stuart has pointed out quite clearly, Vilenkin is addressing the notion of a past-eternal cosmos possibly prior to our local universe.

I have clearly said I have no real philosophical preferences for either model – it’s just that recent evidence does suggest a universe before ours and that opens up a whole can of worms – including an eternal cosmos possibility. Evidence (not “logical” propositions) to the contrary willingly accepted.

The only reason you have no real philosophical preferences for either model (and let’s be honest, you have a strong preference for a past-eternal model because of your ideological commitments), is that you are utterly unaware of the insurmountable problems with the idea of a past-eternal cosmos. If you even remotely understood the problem of an infinite past, or the principle of sufficient reason, or—apparently—even just the science, you would strongly favor a past-finite model. So stop trying to take the intellectual upper hand here; it’s just embarrassing.

Science investigates reality – not nature

I suppose it’s too much to expect a scientist to understand what science is for. Science investigates the physical world. It is empirical by definition. The fact that you seem to believe that science can investigate “reality”, as if in some all-encompassing sense, is rather representative of your highly religious, ignorant, and naive scientism.

And Bnonn – does your point 2 exclude that “nothing”? How do you define “nothing” – “matter”, “energy,” “space-time”??

Well Ken, it’s fairly simple. Nothing is the lack of anything. A lack of classical spacetime isn’t necessarily nothing; and I would hope that we all recognize that the spontaneous appearance of something out of genuine nothing is impossible. Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

Perhaps your statement that “the cause of these things cannot be the things themselves” really can’t be applied here?

Only if you’re willing to give up rational discussion, Ken, which seems eminently and imminently likely.

Ken,

Learn to read.

Stuart still wants to “exclude the possibility of a beginning less universe / pre-universe / cosmos.” He was wrong to provide references to Vilenken’s papers for this because they specifically do not exclude those possibilities.

That is not what I said. Here is what I did say,

However, even if there is a pre-universe, the best evidence, again I believe, for which the quotes I gave from that papers I referred to show, that no pre-universe or any amount of prior-universes extend back into the infinite past.

Thank you Bnonn for bouncing back.

I think Stuart is confusing the concept of our current universe having a beginning with a cosmos composed of universes coming into existence over a much longer period – perhaps eternally.

An eternal universe cannot come into being. Vilenkin is clear, that there is no escaping a cosmic beginning, and his theorem, developed with Guth and Borde equally applies to inflationary models. So a pre-universe, and any amount of prior universes also had a beginning (if there were any, which I still think doubtful).

And so,

it’s just that recent evidence does suggest a universe before ours and that opens up a whole can of worms – including an eternal cosmos possibility.

A universe preceding our current universe is for all purposes irrelevant to the KCA as a ultimate beginning is not averted. And the can of worms does not include the possibility of an eternal cosmos, as this is ruled out by the philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe which are strong and firmly established, and the science which is admittedly provisional, but currently also strong when considering the work of Vilenkin and others.

As for “reality” which you say science investigate, and “nature” which you say science does not investigate, I fail to see any difference or distinction drawn.

As for the quote you gave of Vilenkin’s

“The picture that emerged from this line of development that a small closed universe can spontaneously nucleate out of nothing, where by ‘nothing’ I mean a state with no classical space and time”

Without context it’s difficult to know what point you are making. As you said it is a speculation, so you yourself have already undermined any credibility the quote could have had. But looking at it as it is, that is what I have been arguing for – the origin of the universe out of nothing. That is to say nothing of the way he has defined “nothing.”

Stuart – you and I are using “laws of nature” in entirely different ways. I think your use is inappropriate,

When I use the term “the laws of nature” what else could I mean but what I mean? I mean, at least I gave a reason why I mean what I mean, and that went to show what you mean by “the laws of nature” is not what should be meant by “the laws of nature,” you know what I mean?

If you mean that the universe has no rationality before 10^-35 sec (or perhaps 10^-48 sec) – then where is your evidence for that?

My argument is found above in what is meant by the singularity. You haven’t yourself given any argument as to how a scientist can investigate a universe that literally had no being – did not exist at all? This is the foolishness of your scientism in this area.

Bnonn I asked a specific question. You claim that you had refuted “a cosmos, composed of individual universes, which may stretch back eternally.” “See Vilenkin” is not an answer (especially as he says that “the conditions of our theorem may be satisfied” by “the recycling scenario”, etc. Once this scenario opens up then you do have the possibility of an eternal cosmos, composed of sequential universes with finite beginnings.

Now, I may have missed something in my reading of the 2 papers. I would like that specifically pointed out to me if I have – as I said I am open minded (but aware of the ideas of Penrose and the resulting evidence he and Carroll referred to this year).

My experience is that when people give such a reply (“See Vilenkin”) this is a strong indication that they don’t have supporting evidence (except a name), maybe haven’t even consulted the paper quoted.

And it does no good to abuse me with arrogant claims of my ignorance. (This also seems to be a sign that you yourself have not checked out the scientific evidence.) My experience tells me that those people who “strongly favour” models – based on pure speculation and shutting their eyes to new evidence generally turn out to be wrong when all the evidence comes in. Its called dogmatism and we try to avoid that in science.

Bnonn – I’ll ignore you comments on science (I realise you have a bee in your bonnet there) but wonder how you are going to find out the difference between nothing (“the lack of anything”) and the “nothing” Vilenkin referred to without science. You seem willing to rubbish his summary without any consideration, and relying on your own dogma. (It’s rather silly to then deny the role of science in investigating reality – especially as it has obviously been extremely successful in that role).

The pre-universe possibilities – while they demolish your assumptions in 2 that the overall cosmos had a beginning – are really beside the point (except to show the danger of making declarations like that. The experience also demonstrates your ideological motivation in being prepared to ignore current scientific ideas and current evidence if they conflict with your assumptions).

You still have to face the fact that declaration 3 is completely inadequate (because it is set up to draw the conclusion you desire). It pales besides Vilekin’s summary (And Stuart it is disingenuous to avoid this as being “without context.” Stuart, you were the one that referred the paper to me! – you can easily read the context. Or have you not got a copy? Have you just referred without consulting it? That would explain your attempts to avoid the pre-universe possibilities Vilekin refers to. Perhaps this also explains Bnonn’s 2 word reply “see Vilenkin” to my specific question).

My point in quoting Vilekin’s summary – and there are other similar scenarios which are in the scientific literature – is to show that science is investigating this area. It has ideas, theories and speculations. It has experiments (eg at the LHC) which will contribute to developing our thinking, testing theories, etc. I would think anybody interested in the question would benefit from considering such scientific ideas. This 3 step “logic” is not getting you anywhere (except to justify your preconceived theology). There is no new knowledge coming out of them,. There are no hypotheses. There are no possibilities of experiential validation.

But then again, you aren’t interested in experientially validated knowledge anyway. So perhaps the 3 step logic serves your purpose. Noticeably none of the cosmologists actually involved in this research are listening to you. They are not resorting to such a self-reinforcing, circular argument. They are actually getting on, doing the work, making progress and serving humanity. And they are being successful.

Stuart, I’ll ignore you comments on “laws of nature” – you obviously don’t understand the difference. But could you specifically answer: At what time do you think should science stop investigating reality? <10^-35 sec? Please give a time before which you ban science and after which you allow science? And what would you do to enforce the ban?

Ken,

My experience is that when people give such a reply (”See Vilenkin”) this is a strong indication that they don’t have supporting evidence (except a name), maybe haven’t even consulted the paper quoted.

You’re right. I haven’t consulted the paper. If you recall, my original comments weren’t about the science at all—that was Stuart. I was just referring you back to what he has said.

My experience tells me that those people who “strongly favour” models – based on pure speculation and shutting their eyes to new evidence generally turn out to be wrong when all the evidence comes in. Its called dogmatism and we try to avoid that in science.

The fact that you characterize solid philosophical arguments as “pure speculation” indicates that there is nothing to be gained by further conversation here. Your position is pure foolishness, and this has been explained to you numerous times by myself and others. If you are going to maintain this attitude, refusing to acknowledge logical evidence in favor of religiously pushing your scientism, do not post again.

Bnonn – I’ll ignore you comments on science (I realise you have a bee in your bonnet there) but wonder how you are going to find out the difference between nothing (”the lack of anything”) and the “nothing” Vilenkin referred to without science.

Stuart has already adequately addressed this. The point is irrelevant; either a prior cosmos is implied, or the kind of nothing which the Christian intends is implied.

(It’s rather silly to then deny the role of science in investigating reality – especially as it has obviously been extremely successful in that role).

Of course, I haven’t denied the role of science in investigating reality. You continue to impress us with your inability to read.

The pre-universe possibilities – while they demolish your assumptions in 2 that the overall cosmos had a beginning – are really beside the point (except to show the danger of making declarations like that. The experience also demonstrates your ideological motivation in being prepared to ignore current scientific ideas and current evidence if they conflict with your assumptions).

The only thing which has been demolished is my patience. Even if the science allowed for a past-eternal cosmos, it remains a logical impossibility.

You still have to face the fact that declaration 3 is completely inadequate (because it is set up to draw the conclusion you desire).

Do not post here again until you have familiarized yourself with the basic rules of inference. The very first rule is modus ponens. It is the form which the Kalam argument follows. The conclusion is not “set up”, as if it could be something completely different. It follows from the two premises, which are both true. Don’t be such a moron.

This 3 step “logic” is not getting you anywhere (except to justify your preconceived theology).

Of course, the world’s greatest thinkers disagree. You’re just too religious or too dense to recognize that a valid argument with true premises has a sound conclusion. Once again you prove that “the fool says in his heart, there is no God”, and that scientism is an irrational religion with witless adherents.

There is no new knowledge coming out of them

Isn’t it interesting that you say this as a value judgment. Of course, to an impartial observer, you have merely correctly observed that deduction does not create new information. That’s why it’s so powerful.

They are not resorting to such a self-reinforcing, circular argument.

Either demonstrate how the argument is circular (it isn’t), or retract this stupid statement.

If time is something that can come into being or be created then surely it’s nonsensical to talk about causes ‘before’ this event? And if so I freely confess that I’m incapable of comprehending it.

I can kind of get how ‘eternity’ could have a beginning and an end if by ‘eternity’ we mean ‘for the extent of all time’. And I can also see that there really would be no such thing as ‘before’ or ‘after’ or ’cause’ or ‘effect’ outside of this dimension but it really hurts my head to think of it. This would understandably be a limitation of language and prior experience so shouldn’t be automatically discarded on the basis that it hurts to think about.

I’m not up on the physics of the Big Bang though so am not sure whether the creation-of-time hypothesis is still valid. Anyone know?

Damian,

As far as I am aware, contemporary physics teaches that space and time were created inseparable at the big bang. When I was taught this a few years ago, we used ’4-vectors’ (x,y,z,t) in the mathematics.

William lane Craig and Paul Copan (the latter may be coming to NZ; the former has just been here) wrote a book entitled Creation out of Nothing which has the following blurb on the rear cover:

In this lucid and insightful book, Paul Copan and William Lane Craig fully explore the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, focussing on biblical, extrabiblical, theological, philosophical, and scientific support for the doctrine.

Creation out of Nothing begins with a statement about the significance of creation ex nihilo that clearly identifies what is meant — and what is not meant — by the concept. The authors discuss the doctrine within the context of the Old and New Testaments and extrabiblical material. Copan and Craig then discuss the philosophical issues of creation versus conservation and the finite versus infinite past before addressing the scientific confirmation of creation ex nihilo.

I have the book but have not read it yet.

As the universe is space-time, your right Damian to say ‘before’ the Big Bang is nonsensical. There was no before. Which is partly why I don’t think there were any prior universes. There are cosmogonical models that have a get around, but none that commend themselves as well as the Standard Big Bang Model, where time as well as space, matter and energy literally come into being.

Damian – have a look at this lecture by Penrose: Before the Big Bang: Is There Evidence For Something And If So, What?

If nothing else (he is difficult to follow) his eccentric use of hand written overheads is entertaining!

Also Sean Carroll’s paper Is Our Universe Natural? is surprisingly easy to understand. Sean is always good value.

I guess there can be time in our universe and time in another universe (even pre-universe). Time and space may well arise separately for each universe – but there also seems to be a concept of space (and time?) outside our universe. Certainly there is a concept that universes can come into being inside other universes or even that outside space (de Sitter space?). Carroll gives a diagramme for this with the caption: “A possible spacetime diagram for the universe on ultra-large scales. A natural state for a universe with a positive vacuum energy is empty de Sitter space. In the presence of an appropriate scalar field, quantum fluctuations in such a background can lead to the nucleation of baby universes. Each baby universe is created in a proto-inflationary state, which then expands and reheats into a universe like that we observe.”

Time is an extremely difficult concept to come to grips with – and like a lot of things outside our “middle earth”, “common sense” actually makes no sense when we have to consider them. “Nothing” and empty space are also difficult concepts – and fascinatingly interesting when we start to come to grips with the modern scientific understanding of them. Frank Wilczek’s book Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces is a an extremely well written (and entertaining) book which goes into this.

Ken,

First the philosophical, then the scientific.

The Philosophical

. . . Its called dogmatism and we try to avoid that in science.

Are you dogmatic on that point? This is not a word game. No one can avoid dogmatism. The question is which dogma is true.

You still have to face the fact that declaration 3 is completely inadequate (because it is set up to draw the conclusion you desire).

Its disturbing how you can so blithely dismiss a basic logical inference. Even if we have an ideology to support, that does nothing to refute the certainty of the conclusion based upon the premises. Your only hope to avoid this conclusion is deny the truth of a premise, and your only way to achieve this thus far is present a bloated ontology of prior universes, which is at its best opportunist naturalist metaphysics ruled out by the logical philosophical proofs, and falsified by the best empirical evidence. The ‘escape’ is disingenuous.

There is no new knowledge coming out of them.

That is false. I can only infer from this comment that you dogmatically assume scientism. Is scientific knowledge the only knowledge? Does knowledge about God not count as knowledge?

There are no hypotheses.

Why should resulting hypotheses be a requirement for truth? This is an extremely limiting methodological principle that relegates huge amounts of human knowledge to oblivion.

There are no possibilities of experiential validation.

That is presumptuous! There is no way you can experimentally or empirically verify that with science. Not to mention that scientist (nor his science) cannot experience the beginning of the universe, it can only infer it from the evidence left. But I actually do think you can experience the cause of the universe, as the cause of the universe is the God who regenerates the inner-man and dwells within him in intimate communion.

They are not resorting to such a self-reinforcing, circular argument.

*slap head* Really!? It’s hard to believe your serious. Where is the circularity? Back up your claim with evidence.

And they [scientists] are being successful.

A healthy respect for the history of science, in particular the history of twentieth century cosmology will serve to modify your certainty on the provisional nature of scientific ‘work,’ ‘service’ and ‘progress.’

I’ll ignore you[r] comments on “laws of nature” – you obviously don’t understand the difference

I understand that you understand that the laws of nature are constructs of human knowledge about how the universe the works. That is obviously false, as nature would go on working without human knowledge. Our knowledge of the laws of nature are subject to change, but not the laws of nature themselves. I wonder if you understand what the laws of nature are at all?

My point in quoting Vilekin’s summary – and there are other similar scenarios which are in the scientific literature – is to show that science is investigating this area. It has ideas, theories and speculations.

But no true knowledge or means to attain it. Science (particularly theoretical physics when applied to cosmology) is inept without its philosophical underpinnings so waving it off as not being ‘mapped against reality’ is self-emasculating.

The Scientific

(1)

It pales besides Vilenkin’s summary (And Stuart it is disingenuous to avoid this as being “without context.”. . . explain your attempts to avoid the pre-universe possibilities Vilekin refers to.

You should learn to footnote. Vilenkin’s whole paper is on how past-eternal inflation is not being eternal in the past: on how there is still a need for an initial singularity. Models developed to avoid this all fail in the light of their theorem. See the following quote.

Thus, the weak energy condition is generally violated in an eternally inflating universe. These violations appear to open the door again to the possibility that inflation, by itself, can eliminate the need for an initial singularity. Here we argue that this is not the case.

Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, “Inflation is Not Past-Eternal,” (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012) 2003

Further, Rern Blanchard Edwards is very clear on this – the nature of what singularities are makes the word prior universe absolutely inapplicable.* I’ve listened to the talk you offered by Roger Penrose. He is very engaging but the abundant qualifications, his admission that he really doesn’t know, and the wholly undeveloped nature of his speculations constitutes no real evidence for the hypothesised prior universes your clinging to.

* Rem Blanchard Edwards is very clear on this in his book What Caused the Big Bang (see pages 110-111).

(2)

But could you specifically answer: At what time do you think should science stop investigating reality? <10^-35 sec? Please give a time before which you ban science and after which you allow science?

I said before that the laws of nature break down as time t approaches zero. This idea is not pulled out of thin air. My answer to your question is I don’t know, but certainly when t = 0 science is not a functional option. Beyond the Planck time seems good.

Current established physical theories are believed to fail at this time scale, and many physicists expect that the Planck time might be the smallest unit of time that could ever be measured, even in principle.

Wikipedia, “Time” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time; Retrieved 8 Jan, 2008)

Also Vilenkin says,

If the cosmological evolution is followed back in time, we are driven to the initial singularity where the classical equations of general relativity break down.

Alexander Vilenkin, “Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation,” (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204061) 2002

Also Rern Blanchard Edwards says,

Conceptually, singularities involve the total eradication of space, time, physical causation, continuity, and all laws of nature. . .

Rern Blanchard Edwards, What Caused the Big Bang (Amsterdam/New York, NY; Rodopi, 2001) p. 109

If the laws of nature do not break down, they certainly become inapplicable, thus also ensuring the failure of science.

(3)

And what would you do to enforce the ban?

I haven’t yet figured out a way to stop people from being illogical. No nature means no laws of nature. How do you explain how science investigates something that doesn’t exist?

(4)

(especially as he says that “the conditions of our theorem may be satisfied” by “the recycling scenario”, etc. Once this scenario opens up then you do have the possibility of an eternal cosmos, composed of sequential universes with finite beginnings.

As you said this is at present highly speculative. That part of the paper is merely a suggestion where further study needs to be applied. As no argument has been formulated nor any scientific evidence yet been uncovered for an eternal universe one hardly needs to refute it. On current scientific knowledge we have no expectation whatsoever of that the ultimate beginning of the universe or any amount of prior universes will be averted. And again on solid philosophical ground such a discovery is not expected either.

Damian – another go at explaining this. I think part of the problem of understanding what came before .. is that it is very hard to understand by looking backwards. Perhaps we should look forward. Part of the problem is that we are within the space-time of our universe. It’s like the inhabitants of a universe which is limited to the surface of the earth – not aware of anything outside that surface. They can travel northwards (say) but will reach a point where they can go no further. They cannot envisage anything beyond that point.

Current inflationary big bang theory can explain the formation of our universe – as in Vilenkin’s summary: “The picture that emerged from this line of development that a small closed universe can spontaneously nucleate out of nothing, where by ‘nothing’ I mean a state with no classical space and time.” Inflation proves to be important as it explains the formation of matter and radiation – the old “standard” big bang model didn’t.

Now that summary raises the possibility of the formation of new universes – starting from empty space within ours – by the same mechanism. We only have our own universe to learn from – but having produced an explanatory theory we are now aware that this could also explain “daughter” universes.

These daughter universes have their own space-time – inhabitants would have trouble envisaging what happened before their big bang.

These “daughter” universes may well spawn “granddaughter” universes and so on. Once we realise that we also realise that our universe may also be one of a long chain – perhaps extending eternally – but obviously not in our space-time.

I blow hot and cold on these possibilities. It seems so wasteful (but then again one thing we have learned in the last century is that the universe is much bigger than we could ever have contemplated). Then what conditions are required for the “empty space” capable of spontaneously nucleating a new universe to arise. Perhaps those conditions arise easily – or perhaps only in a very ancient universe after black holes irradiate all their mass (Penrose seems to suggest this). Carroll talks about empty space with non-zero vacuum energy settling into a “de Sitter configuration” which can produce a “proto-inflationary” patch.

The usual concept is that we could never communicate, or gain information from, such other universes – so there would be no possibility of validation which is extremely unsatisfactory for science. However, Roger Penrose – in his lecture last October – raised the possibility of seeing evidence for a past universe in the background microwave radiation of our universe. He described tantalising evidence which could confirm this (although he was remaining open-minded because he felt more interpretation of the data was required). Somewhere I have seen other cosmologists describe this evidence as more definite.

I am completely open-minded on these possibilities – I have no ideological or philosophical barrow to push (except the insistence on being guided by reality). However, I find the the evidence given by Penrose fascinating because it does challenge the idea that such ideas cannot be tested. I think there has been a similar suggestion of evidence of the effect of a sibling universe on our universe. I’m always sceptical of claims that there are ideas or theories which can never be tested. Never is an extremely long time and humanity is not good at making predictions.

Cheers Ken. I printed off and read the Penrose paper last night but have not had the opportunity to watch the video you linked to yet.

Here are my uneducated and rather muddled thoughts on the problem of our universe, time and causality:

I think of the “universe” as the whole system. I can accept that we might be in a bubble that we think is the whole universe though. I think of “time” as a measure of things changing. Of preceding (is that circular?) but not necessarily causing. If all that we are physically able to observe is part of a bigger system then I struggle to see how “time” can have come into being in our bubble because there surely would have been things that preceded us in the overall system.

Time may well be merely an analogy we use in our imperfect vocabulary and understanding of the world around us and so I’m prepared for the mechanisms of time/cause/effect (and even space?) to be vastly different in “reality” to what we are capable of comprehending. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that our vocabulary and, hence, our comprehension, is ill-suited to understanding the concept.

Thoughts?

—

As an aside (and I realise that this isn’t necessarily the place for it) I suspect that fine-tuning arguments are based on the likely false assumption that properties of the universe can be adjusted like a giant control panel. We use a number to represent absolute zero but in reality it’s just the point at which atomic movement stops. The numbers we apply make us think that this physical property is negotiable but I don’t see how that follows. It seems likely the same applies for the “mass” (i.e. a number we’ve applied) of the hydrogen atom and so on and so on.

If you think of time as a physical property of the universe (which it is), then the difficulties evaporate. Saying time began is problematic, just as it is saying prior universes, but saying time came into being is not. Its the later that is meant in any model requiring a singularity, which is the standard model affirms.

I recommend you goto either Rern Blanchard Edwards, What Caused the Big Bang (Amsterdam/New York, NY; Rodopi, 2001) p. 109-112 , or check out William Lane Craig himself as he is a world renowned philosopher of time.

Lets not get side-tracked by a design argument, and keep the comments to the cosmological argument. :-)

Cheers Stuart.

If you think of time as a physical property of the universe (which it is)…

I’m unconvinced. Not that it takes anything away from any argument you are making but that I have deep suspicions that our concept of time is an analogy and that to assume it’s as basic as a physical property might be an assumption too far. I’m not saying you are wrong, just that I’m going to have to read up a lot more before I can agree fully with that statement.

Thanks for the book recommendations.

A little while ago after attending one of Craig’s debates I wrote my thoughts on infinity and his cosmological argument. I was particularly amused with his jump from “the universe exists” to “a mind made it”.

I think the biggest problem, though, is with his first premise: 1. Everything that begins to exist had a cause. This would seem perfectly logical from our experience but if time began then it is surely impossible for it to have had a “cause” because that “cause” would extend “time” back and so on and so on. What do you think?

I think the biggest problem, though, is with his first premise: 1. Everything that begins to exist had a cause. This would seem perfectly logical from our experience but if time began then it is surely impossible for it to have had a “cause” because that “cause” would extend “time” back and so on and so on. What do you think?

It would be a valid criticism were it not for simultaneous causation. The study of causation is linked with time, but not intrinsically. We have event/event causation – like a brick striking a window pane – which necessitates time, we have a state/state causation – like the water surface tension is the cause of wood’s floating – which does not necessitate time, and in the beginning of the universe we have an odd sort of state/event causation – where the cause is a timeless state, but the effect is an event a finite time ago.

This type of causation is called “agent causation,” which strongly suggests the existence of a personal agent who freely chooses to cause the effect. For instance a man sitting on a chair from eternity can freely choose to stand – from a state of affairs he causes an effect. By “choose” I mean he freely intends from eternity.

Damian – according to Einsteinian relativity time and space can’t be separated. We now talk about space-time. This should indicate that time is specific to the particular bubble (although Penrose throws a spanner in the works by claiming that time does not exist before matter). I guess we can say that if our universe arose spontaneously in the empty space of a pre-universe – that pre-universe existed before ours but would not be shown in the time of our universe which started with its own big bang.

So, I imagine that we could say the cause of our universe occurred before the big bang in the space of the pre-universe. So we don’t see the cause in the time of our universe.

I agree our “common sense” understanding of time is just not up to the job. It’s hard enough understanding Einsteinium space-time in our universe, let alone considering sequential universes. I imagine the mathematics can handle it though.

Fine tuning does come into this as it could influence the values of the physical constants of specific universes. I think that both the “design” merchants and the “irreligious” chance advocates start with assumption of the values of these constants arising by chance – the design advocates then have their god sitting at a control panel to shift the values in the required direction.

I personally feel, like you, that the values of (at least many if not most) these constants could not take on other values. Barrow goes for a mix of inherent values and values taken from a statistical range. Whatever, I think the real problem for science is understanding why the physical constants have the values they do have. It is lazy to assume these arose by chance and then postulate a multiverse or designer to explain the actual values.

I believe the fine-tuning argument is very much overblown. Advocates of design, particularly, like to go for big numbers simply because of confirmation bias. I think this leads to them sometimes misrepresenting or distorting scientific knowledge in this area (the cosmological constant stands out here).

Ken, design issues such as fine-tuning are relevant in a completely separate argument. Not here. Please restrict your comments to the argument or refutations of it.

I guess we can say that if our universe arose spontaneously in the empty space of a pre-universe – that pre-universe existed before ours but would not be shown in the time of our universe which started with its own big bang.
So, I imagine that we could say the cause of our universe occurred before the big bang in the space of the pre-universe. So we don’t see the cause in the time of our universe.

Ken, you also need to read Rern Blanchard Edwards, What Caused the Big Bang as your ontology is completely skewed. See pages 109-112 especially.

Ahhhh, I see where this is going. When I ask “well, what caused this ‘personal agent’?” (aka The Big Guy) you are going to say He is eternal and therefore needs no cause. My objection to this would be that the scenario that, say, energy is eternal and that the Big Bang event where energy became mass is a far simpler proposition.

At least we have some kind of evidence of quantum fluctuations that don’t appear to be causal rather than having to propose a being with intent and experience and so on. And I can assert with equal confidence that “1. All agents are caused” to match Craig’s first proposition. If there is room to question this proposition then there is equal room for questioning Craig’s first.

If you want to alter my first proposition to “1. All agents are caused except for God” then it is equally valid for me to alter Craig’s first proposition to “1. Everything that begins to exist had a cause except for the universe” and mine would be a simpler exception because all I’m invoking is a point of energy whereas yours is a being with thoughts and intentions that somehow exist outside of time yet can make choices, etc.

Does this make sense?

Hey Damian.

A little while ago after attending one of Craig’s debates I wrote my thoughts on infinity and his cosmological argument. I was particularly amused with his jump from “the universe exists” to “a mind made it”.

I think you’re being too flippant about his argument, to be honest. Remembering the distinction we’ve drawn with Ken between the local universe, and the “cosmos”—namely, any (possibly prior) state of affairs entailing spacetime and matter-energy, consider how might draw Craig’s argument out, if we have more time to consider it than he had to present it in a live debate:

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause (true by impossibility of the contrary).
2. The cosmos began to exist (highly probable on the basis of both logical and scientific arguments).
3. Therefore, the cosmos has a cause (from (1) and (2)).
4. The cause of the cosmos is not the cosmos (by impossibility of the contrary).
5. Therefore, the cause of the cosmos is not contingent, spacetime, and/or matter-energy (elaborated from the properties of the cosmos).
6. Therefore, the cause of the cosmos is non-contingent, immaterial and eternal (restatement of (5)).
7. The only other immaterial things of which we have knowledge, if they are immaterial, are abstract objects and minds.
8. Abstract objects are causally inert (by merit of their nature).
9. Therefore, if abstract objects are immaterial, an abstract object could not be the cause of the cosmos.
10. Minds are causally efficacious (by merit of their nature).
11. A non-contingent and eternal mind is logically possible.
12. Therefore, if minds are immaterial, a non-contingent and eternal mind could be the cause of the cosmos.
13. Therefore, if the cause of the cosmos is knowable to us, it is a non-contingent, eternal mind with sufficient causal power to instantiate the cosmos out of prior non-existence (from (2), (6), (9).
14. An knowable and possible cause is a better explanation than an unknown and unknowable cause.
15. Therefore, the best explanation for the cause of the cosmos is a mind with sufficient causal power to instantiate the cosmos out of prior non-existence.

Premise (4) includes non-contingency perhaps a little controversially; but if you deny it, you deny the principle of parsimony, which seems at best hypocritical and at worst damaging to your own position. Furthermore, ancillary arguments can bolster the appeal to parsimony, such as arguments from conceptual realism like the one I’ve elaborated further up.

Premise (12) can be ably strengthened from mere possibility to virtual certainty, if we refer to ancillary ontological arguments such as those from reason (Lewis, Reppert), or self-reflexivity (Aquinas), etc.

There aren’t any other premises which appear particularly controversial to me, except perhaps (14)—I suppose this would depend on how you view explanations. But (14) becomes extremely strong if we include ancillary arguments such as I’ve mentioned above, which raise the thesis that the first cause is a mind from mere possibility to extreme probability. Nonetheless, since I’m trying to stick to what Craig might reasonably be extrapolated as saying in his debate, without reference to a bunch of other arguments (ie, I’d like this argument to at least stand as reasonably persuasive in isolation), I’ve chosen to ignore those.

Ken said,

I personally feel, like you, that the values of (at least many if not most) these constants could not take on other values. Barrow goes for a mix of inherent values and values taken from a statistical range. Whatever, I think the real problem for science is understanding why the physical constants have the values they do have. It is lazy to assume these arose by chance and then postulate a multiverse or designer to explain the actual values.

Although this is off-topic, let me reply briefly for the benefit of others who are interested in looking into this further (Ken will foolishly dismiss philosophical arguments so I’m not counting my chickens that he’ll bother). Either the values of various constants are necessary (meaning they could not have been otherwise), or they are contingent (meaning they could have been otherwise). If they are necessary, then you run severely aground on arguments from the principle of sufficient reason. Refer to Thomas Aquinas and Gottfried Leibniz for more on this, and also William Lane Craig; a simple Google search should turn up a fair bit. But if the values of physical constants are contingent, then they could have been otherwise, and fine-tuning arguments are sound.

Regards,
Bnonn

Well Bnonn – you had better inform CERN and get them to stop all work on the LHC. You have solved all their problems for them!

Damian,

It makes sense. But it doesn’t constitute a good refutation for the following reasons.

When I ask “well, what caused this ‘personal agent’?” (aka The Big Guy) you are going to say He is eternal and therefore needs no cause. My objection to this would be that the scenario that, say, energy is eternal and that the Big Bang event where energy became mass is a far simpler proposition.

Only the singularity which the Standard Big Bang Model postulates (and by the way no model has yet empirically succeeded in avoiding) is not the beginning of matter only, but the beginning of all energy as well.

At least we have some kind of evidence of quantum fluctuations that don’t appear to be causal rather than having to propose a being with intent and experience and so on.

This is based on a misunderstanding. There are at least ten different interpretations of the math which are utterly deterministic other than quantum indeterminacy of the Copenhagen Interpretation, which many physicists are dissatisfied with. Thus quantum physics is not a proven exception to premise one. But more importantly particles do not come into being out of nothing on the traditional indeterministic interpretation, but arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum, which is a sea of energy with structure and subject to physical law. Thus spontaneously arising sub-atomic particles do not truly represent creation ex nihilo.

And I can assert with equal confidence that “1. All agents are caused” to match Craig’s first proposition. If there is room to question this proposition then there is equal room for questioning Craig’s first.

Only the assertion “all agents are caused,” does not receive equal confidence that “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” Especially as the beginning of the universe implies a necessary and uncaused being. ‘Ahh,’ you say…

If you want to alter my first proposition to “1. All agents are caused except for God” then it is equally valid for me to alter Craig’s first proposition to “1. Everything that begins to exist had a cause except for the universe”

It is ad hoc to excuse the universe from needing a cause. But not ad hoc to exclude God, as (i) the concept of God already is a necessary, uncaused and beginningless being, and (ii) the creation of the universe (which includes all space, matter, energy and time) from nothing suggests the cause of the universe be an ultra-mundane being that is a-temporal (or timeless and eternal), and (iii) we have other cosmological arguments from Liebniz and Aquinas to suggest a necessary cause of the universe. So we have a theological reason, a scientific-type reason, and at least two other philosophical reasons to think that God should be excluded from needing a cause. But not reason to think that the universe should be excluded from needing a cause (accept the need to reject the conclusion of the cosmological arguments).

Plus, I remember Walter Martin saying, “So what God requires a cause, you’ve found your creator, worship Him.” Not great philosophy or theology but the point is, I think, that the objector is assuming God exists in order to find an excuse to deny worshipping Him.

Well Bnonn – you had better inform CERN and get them to stop all work on the LHC. You have solved all their problems for them!

In my opinion it is extremely dense comment to make. Bnonn’s not talking about undermining the role of science or disregarding scientific evidence. The LHC does not even come anywhere near to talking about what we are talking about, the creation of the universe.

William Lane Craig again,

The new LHC will enable researchers to re-create the conditions existing less than a millionth of a second after the Big Bang at energies higher by a factor of four than previously possible, a great advance but nothing compared to the energies prior to the Planck time 10-43 second after the Big Bang, where General Relativity breaks down. We’ll probably never be able to re-create energy levels high enough to probe that era.

The LHC should enable physicists to test for the existence of certain partners for sub-atomic particles, like the photino for the photon or the gravitino for the graviton, which are predicted by supersymmetric theories of particle physics. Scientists hope to be able to discover the Higgs boson, a particle thought to be responsible for the field that imparts mass to various sub-atomic particles. The Higgs boson is frequently called “the God Particle,” not because it has any theological significance but because, like God, it is everywhere but is mysteriously hidden. The LHC could provide experimental evidence for string theory and therefore additional spatial dimensions and help to discover the nature of the dark energy that pervades the universe. Of course, it could disconfirm these theories if the predictions fail.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6587

Bnonn, I assure you that I’m not being flippant.

Let’s go through this step-by-step:

Premise 1 makes perfect common sense from our experience. This is tied up in the word “begin” and “cause” in our common use of language. I can also create a premise that uses the same commonsensical structure; “1. Nothing can be in two places at once”. But in the last few years we’ve found strong evidence to indicate that this is not necessarily so. It would have been an irrefutable statement prior to this. I accept Craig’s premise 1 at face value but leave wiggle room for the weirdness we are discovering at the quantum level.

Premise 2 is on very shaky ground. If, by ‘cosmos’ we mean ‘everything that exists’ then it’s not logically valid to say that it ‘began’ and yet leave something else to exist prior to it. Causality must, by logic, break at this point. This would strongly indicate that we haven’t a clue and may not even be able to formulate a hypothesis that would make sense. It’s at this point that the argument should stop as to go any further is assuming too much. Conclusion 3 simply cannot be granted without stepping over into pure fantasy.

But let’s go further anyway. Let’s see where this fantasy takes us.

Premise 4 kind of restates premise 2 and leaves us squirming in delicious anticipation of some magical solution to this dilemma. Premise 5 lets us know that this magical solution doesn’t have to obey any logic that we understand to be true. And conclusion 6 builds on 5 to show that where things used to be bound by time they can now be eternal and where we’re now made of nothing and require nothing to have made us. In other words, we’re in Opposite Land. Back in the cosmos we had to have a cause, out here we don’t.

But if we’re now in Opposite Land wouldn’t it be valid for me to say that back in the cosmos an object had to ‘exist’ in order to have an effect. Perhaps here things don’t need to exist either. (OK, that was flippant but I’m highlighting the games we can play once we’ve stepped over this line).

Premise 7 asks us what immaterial things we can think of from experience back here in the cosmos. We’re asked to go all medieval ignoring a couple of centuries of neuroscience and believe that the mind is not from around here. This is a big problem however as this is asking as much as having us beg for the inclusion of The Music of the Spheres or the Aether. How about the staggeringly simple concept that the mind is what the brain does? Is this not better evidenced than a feeling that our minds exist in different dimensions?

We feel that our minds are immaterial and, therefore, eternal. But can you remember what happened two years before you were born? Can there remain any doubt that what we think of as the ‘mind’ emerges out of physical processes? We all experience it. Premise 7 has very real problems.

Premise 8 and conclusion 9 eliminate things like numbers from being able to make universes. Of course this makes sense because numbers and other abstract objects exist in our heads as descriptions of things in the cosmos. That they were introduced as possible candidates further shows the medieval thinking required to have got this far.

Premise 10 says that minds can make things happen. True, it certainly feels that way. There are strong arguments (which I don’t personally side with) that say that even through we feel like we are ‘free’ that this is just an illusion. I tend to go with the world-within-a-world concept where, sure, we’re made of atoms that aren’t ‘free’ but, just like music on a CD can be made of 0s and 1s that are themselves not music, our ‘freedom’ is a result of our component parts ‘doing stuff’. At this level is a kind of freedom. But not to make universes.

Premise 11 has gone too far. Even in this fantasy we can’t give this the credibility it begs for. Everything else disintegrates after this. We’d gone too far right back at premise 2 and we had fun but if we are to hold on to at least one shred of integrity or dignity we have to stop at this point. To go further would be to make a mockery of our sincere attempts at reasonableness right back at the start.

So, if it seemed I was being flippant it was not because I hadn’t considered Craig’s arguments but that I see them as implausible and carefully constructed to support a mystical belief system. A far more truthful approach, in my opinion, is to say that we just don’t know but let’s find out without just making stuff up, swallowing it wholesale and then telling others they’re going to hell.

Damian,

1. Nothing can be in two places at once”.

That is an amphiboly in the current discussion. Your objection still leaves us really good grounds still to accept premise one as more probable than its contradictory. But I’ve responded to your ‘wiggle room for the wierdness’ on the quantum level already. You need to go back and read comment 61.

Causality must, by logic, break at this point.

If you mean to imply that causality is a law of the universe, than just like the other laws it comes into being with the universe. I’ve already responded to the causation without time.

This would strongly indicate that we haven’t a clue and may not even be able to formulate a hypothesis that would make sense. It’s at this point that the argument should stop as to go any further is assuming too much.

No, its at this point we should select the one hypothesis that does make sense and that we have empirical evidence for, the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time.

Conclusion 3 simply cannot be granted without stepping over into pure fantasy.

Modus Ponems is a fantasy? Your logic there is what’s fantastic.

No Stuart – my comment wasn’t dense – it was flippant. Purposely so. I was reacting to this:

“If they are necessary, then you run severely aground on arguments from the principle of sufficient reason. “

What can this possibly mean? That we don’t know why the values are what they are (true in many cases)? But surely that is why we investigate to find out. It seems to me that assuming the values are what they are by chance, and then refusing to investigate that as one of the possibilities, would be the option that runs aground. And that is what both the “design” merchants (with their “fine-tuning” exaggerations) and the dogmatic multiverse advocates are doing. Bnonn was not interacting at all with my points (he seemed more concerned with objecting to my having (as I expressed it) a personal view!

Bnonn has not even argued out his case (I don’t see that he can) but just declared it. I consider that dense and worthy only of humour. (At least I didn’t resort to offensively labelling him a moron or a fool).

A general comment:

There is a lot of referring to Craig and other apologists here to support arguments I am sure neither of you really understand. I suggest that you would inform yourself better by actually referring to the scientists doing, or involved in, the work. After all, Craig is only there to give an apologist explanation and can clearly be shown to be wrong on at least the cosmological constant “fine-tuning” – by referring to the people doing the work. Who are you going to believe there?

And try not to just seek quotes to support a position – try to understand what is being said. Your simple rejection of the LHC relevance is an example (although my flippant comment was not meant as part of a serious argument). The Higgs field is intimately involved in the inflationary big bang explanation of the formation of matter and radiation. Consequently the outcomes of the next few years experiments at CERN will have relevance to our ideas of the formation of the universe. The fact that the LHC won’t re-create the energy levels a the earlier times is beside the point as they are not required for validating these fields. Science very often makes progress indirectly on such matters.

Similarly your rejection of comments on quantum fluctuations. Do you have any evidence that there is a “nothing”, and “empty space” without vacuum energy? Can you produce a situation where an empty space exists divorced from these fundamental fields? Isn’t that what empty space is, after all? Aren’t you just trying to avoid the fact that there are scientific explanations for the formation of the universe by stating they are not creation ex nihilo. Does that matter ? And what is the actual difference between your “nothing” and the one with quantum fluctuations? Where has your special “nothing” been observed?

Have a look at Frank Wilczek’s lectures on this (A Night with Nobel – The Origin of Mass and the Feebleness of Gravity and Anticipating A New Golden Age). He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2004 and has written a very interesting book on the fundamental nature of “nothing” – more fundamental than matter and space-time. It is probably the first popular presentation of these ideas at such an advanced level.

Quite an eye-opener. It really brings home the inability of “common sense” to understand reality.

Try to restrict your comments to the KCA. Fine-tuning and design are aspects that would go an a separate thread. Also realise that flippancy isn’t communicated in written letters and without quotes that show context your comments can easily be interpreted as dense.

There is a lot of referring to Craig and other apologists here to support arguments I am sure neither of you really understand . . . Who are you going to believe there?

Congratulations on constructing a paragraph that is both ad homenin and the genetic fallacy.

Similarly your rejection of comments on quantum fluctuations. Do you have any evidence that there is a “nothing”, and “empty space” without vacuum energy? Can you produce a situation where an empty space exists divorced from these fundamental fields? Isn’t that what empty space is, after all? Aren’t you just trying to avoid the fact that there are scientific explanations for the formation of the universe by stating they are not creation ex nihilo?

A person who was actually listening would be unimpressed with your questions. The Standard Big Bang Model predicts and has verified empirical evidence that all matter, time, energy and space has their origin a finite time ago. Saying “empty space” without vacuum in reference to “nothing” is nonsense, as I think the parenthesis are meant to imply. Nothing is not empty space, it is the non-existance of space. Postulating anything beyond the singularity (in or as the nothingness) is metaphysics.

Remember that no one has yet escaped the singularity predicted in the Big Bang Model which represents creation ex nihilo.

And what is the actual difference between your “nothing” and the one with quantum fluctuations? Where has your special “nothing” been observed?

Where has macro-evolution been observed? I take it your an evolutionist so you do believe in macro-evolution. But surely you recognise that it has not been observed, it has been inferred from the evidence. The point here is not to bring up evolution, but to show that science and logic inferring things without direct observation is legitimate. In principle “nothing” cannot be observed, so your question is stacking the deck. I can tell you at least that “nothing” is not “a sea of energy with structure and subject to physical law.” The vacuum is a part of our universe that itself has an origin in the Big Bang.

Stuart – you avoid the fact that apologists like Craig are not reliable primary (or even secondary) sources on this subject. These apologist groups exist with the function of sanitising information to fit in with the preconceived religious ideas they have, and their followers adhere to. Any open-minded reading of these sources surely makes that clear.

I will post something on Monday at Open Parachute discussing this sort of approach to justifying ones ideas and how it leads to a ghettoisation and blinkering of the views of their adherents.

This has happened to you – it’s clearly noticeable from the limitation of your referencing and you clearly opportunist quoting scientific sources (the references themselves garnered from the apologetics sites) without understanding their content (or probably even reading them – certainly Bnonn admitted to not having consulted a reference he relied on). As someone with scientific background I find this sort of approach very closed minded because it prevents you from actually learning from the sources.

You clearly don’t understand big bang models (hence your insistence on reference to outmoded “standard” non-inflationary models despite relying on the results of the inflationary models) and use it only in an opportunist way. You wish to define the “nothing” in your own way and quite differently to big bang theory (eg. “The picture that emerged from this line if development that a small closed universe can spontaneously nucleate out of nothing, where by ‘nothing’ I mean a state with no classical space and time”) as referred to by Vilenkin, Carroll, etc.

And then you fall back on to the old ID “inferred” argument. This is the same as your “historical” science argument – when pressed you admit that your “well supported” claim is really only apologetics sources like Stephen C. Meyer. You admit to having been “over zealous.” (You could benefit for an open minded consideration of this video from the science & religion series where Krauss points out that all science is historical which is exactly my experience: Video: Lawrence Krauss – Science & Religion: Two Ships in the Night).

You want to have your own definition of “nothing” (and yet rely on the scientific understanding of it by referring to the big bang models) – without any justifying evidence except what you state can and cannot be investigated. It’s logically silly to day “In principle “nothing” cannot be observed, …… I can tell you at least that “nothing” is …” (Your are saying “science cannot understand this but I will tell you what it is” – mind you haven’t I heard that somewhere before?)

I can appreciate that you have a preconceived belief you wish to prove or defend. (An approach which I appreciate is very common). However, there are many with similar preconceived beliefs who do accept scientific knowledge and ideas without feeling the need to sanitise by distortion. Have a look at the interview with Father Coyne (“Scientism” in the eyes of the beholder or You Tube interview with Father George Coyne) – I think he gets it right.

Ken,

There were two main issues you raised in your last comment.

(1) Genetic Fallacy

The origin of these ideas is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is the truth, and you need to give reasons why these ideas are false, without smearing the sources or questioning the motivation behind them. Using the genetic fallacy by no means constitutes a refutation.

I should also like to point out that if Craig is unqualified to speak authoritatively on cosmology then you aren’t either. Craig has devoted the last 30 years of his life to understanding and remaining on top of the developments in the field, while you yourself have candidly admitted that this is not your speciality. The point remains even if his motivation to do so is ideological or religiously motivated, for you do not have no ideological agenda to push on the issue. You’re as religiously committed to denying there is a God, and just as dogmatic as you claim we are in accepting there is. You need arguments for your position. The KCA is one of our arguments, and if you wish it refuted you need to direct your criticisms at the argument and not the people making them. To do so is ad homenin and poor, lazy reasoning.

(2) On “Nothing”

It’s logically silly to day “In principle “nothing” cannot be observed, …… I can tell you at least that “nothing” is …” (Your are saying “science cannot understand this but I will tell you what it is” – mind you haven’t I heard that somewhere before?)

You have (deliberately?) cut off the quote and thus distorted my response. I said I can tell you that “nothing” is not a vacuum endowed with rich structure and subject itself to physical laws. Nothing is not something. (In your arguments I might have a referent for “nothing” :-) ).

And this is an idea supported by great scientists. As I quoted John Barrow and Frank Tipler above in the article.

At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.

John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), p. 442.

To emphasis my point,

It is, of course, somewhat inappropriate to call the origin of a bubble universe in a fluctuation of the vacuum ‘creation ex nihilo‘, for the quantum mechanical vacuum is not truly ‘nothing’; rather, the vacuum state has a rich structure which resides in a previously existing substratum of space-time, wither Minkowski of de Sitter space-time. Clearly, a true ‘creation ex nihilo‘ would be spontaneous generation of everythingspace-time, the quantum mechanical vacuum, matterat some time in the past.

John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), p. 441.

This is the problem with out of context quotations isn’t it (especially when we don’t fully understand the subject. For example (from the same book p 435)
“because our whole observable universe of size … derives from an inflation of the properties of a single quantum fluctuation … there may exist…” (equations omitted for convenience). And you were the one rejecting a role for quantum fluctuations because (you claim) they couldn’t occur in “nothing!”

It’s really silly to discuss such complex theories (especially by quoting passages which are not really understood) in the manner of a pissing competition. Although reference to the statements of some scientists at least, even if out of context, does show that you are prepared to give authority to a scientific investigation and understanding of the origins of our local universe and other possible universes (although, does this require Craig’s prior approval?).

I think (but I guess you will refuse to see it my way) some important general comments have been made which show the 1, 2, 3 logic you initially advanced is really not logical (it’s clearly aimed at a preconceived conclusion) and that you attempt to use scientific theory in an opportunist manner to support these conclusions. Like a drunk clinging to a lamppost – more for support than illumination. I know Craig uses the same logical arguments – I reacted the same way when he presented them in NZ.

My comments on Craig, etc., stand. I am not comparing him with me (this has already been pointed out so you are quite aware of that) – but with scientists doing the work . That’s where I get my information (and that is more than grabbing references out of context from someone like Craig). The little of Craig and Ross that I have read I have found unreliable (Posting something on that – Dark Energy – on Monday too. Will be interested to see your specific defence of Craig there). Neither would I limit my approval of scientists (calling them “great scientists”) to be defined by the fact they have been quoted by Craig. (I probably prefer to concur with Sean Carroll’s assessment of Tipler today as a crackpot The Varieties of Crackpot Experience although Barrow still has scientific credibility). This is not a comment on their book – just the way you confer greatness.

The fact remains – Craig is not a primary source. Neither is he a reliable secondary source – because he uses the science opportunistically to support religious conclusions. Go to the unbiased original work – and then make up your own mind.

Ken,

…because he [Craig] uses the science opportunistically to support religious conclusions. Go to the unbiased original work – and then make up your own mind.

Assuming unbiased work exists, you need to realise that the presence of ideological motivations do not make an argument a bad one.

My comments on Craig, etc., stand. I am not comparing him with me (this has already been pointed out so you are quite aware of that) – but with scientists doing the work.

Your perception of the scientists doing the work, you mean. His perception and your perception butt heads, so you are, in the end comparing him with you.

You also need to realise the 1, 2, 3 syllogism is logically valid so what we have mainly been discoursing on here is the soundness of premise 2, namely the creation of the universe ex nihilo.

Finally, in denying premise 2 you do step outside of the current mainstream. Premise 2, based solely on the evidence for the Big Bang, receives wide support. And even if there is doubt cast upon the argument for the absolute beginning of the universe from Big Bang Cosmology, we also have the corroborating arguments from the two philosophical arguments and the other scientific proof.

This discussion has probably reached a natural conclusion but I thought I would pass on something from a book I am currently (and quite fortuitously) reading. It’s John Barrow’s “The Constants of Nature.” As you have described him as a “great scientist’ and used a previous book of his as a source you might be open to considering his comments that are relevant to this discussion. He discusses the consequences of current (2002) inflationary big bang theory and two of his comments are relevant:

1: (p 189) “Beyond the boundary of that little patch lie many (perhaps infinitely many) other such causally connected patches which will all undergo varying amounts of inflation to produce extended regions of our Universe that lie beyond our visible horizon today. This leads us to expect that our Universe possesses a highly complex geography and the conditions that we can see within our visible horizon, about fifteen billion light years away, are unlikely to typical of those far beyond it. This complicated picture is called ‘chaotic inflation’.”

This, to me, presents the “multiverse” scenario in a far more credible way. And:

2: (p 191) ” If a region inflates then it necessarily creates within itself the conditions for further inflation to occur from many sub-regions within. This process can continue into the infinite future with inflated regions producing further sub-regions which inflate, which in turn produce further sub-regions that inflate, and so on … ad infinitum. The process has no end. It has been called the ‘eternal* or ‘self-reproducing* inflationary universe (see Figure 9.6).
This enlarged conception of the inflationary model did not set out to produce such an elaborate picture of the Universe. The self-reproducing character of the eternal inflationary universe seems to be an inevitable by-product of the sensitivity of the evolution of a universe to small quantum fluctuations in density from place to place when it is very young.”

He refers to work by Vilenkin (who you also seem to consider authoritative) and Linde for the later concepts.

This confirms my understanding that current inflationary big bang theory (which is well supported by empirical evidence) raises the possibility of both different mini-universe regions (“multiverse” concept) within the wider universe and an eternal sequence of universes. That is why the empirical validation suggested by Penrose (which might have well be shown to be true by now) is interesting.

Such understanding of current science does undermine the logic in your argument – one cannot use current big bang theory to support such logic.

Unfortunately Chaotic Inflationary models have failed to avert the beginning of the universe predicted on the Standard Models. Ken, you are confusing several things here. (1) An ‘eternal universe’ that is infinite in the future and ‘eternal universe’ which is infinite in the past and thus succeeds in avoiding an initial singularity are not the same thing. The quotes you give are for the former. (2) Current inflationary big bang theory ‘which is well supported by empirical evidence’ is not the Chaotic Inflationary Model of the wider universe championed by Linde. In order to avoid an ultimate beginning Linde proposed inflation is beginningless, thus averting the singularity and making our universe but one bubble in a wider, eternal multiverse. This proposal is unduly metaphysical, and though popular has been falsified by Vilenkin in 1993.

A model in which the inflationary phase has no end and continuously produces new islands of thermalization naturally leads to this question: can this model also be extended to the infinite past, avoiding in this way the problem of the initial singularity? The universe would then be in a steady state of eternal inflation without a beginning. The purpose of this paper is to show that this is in fact not possible in future-eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions. Such models must necessarily possess initial singularities; i.e., the inflationary universe must have had a beginning. 1

1. Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin, “Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity,” (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9312022) 1993.

To make clear the abstract at the beginning reads “It is shown that a physically reasonable spacetime that is eternally inflating to the future must possess an initial singularity.” With the collaboration of Alan Guth these two managed to strengthen their theorem ‘which appears to close that door completely’ on a past eternal universe.

More recently, general theorems were proved [39], using the global techniques of Penrose and Hawking, where it was shown that inflationary spacetimes are geodesically incomplete to the past. However, it is now believed [40,41] that one of the key assumptions made in these theorems, the weak energy condition, is likely to be violated by quantum fluctuations in the inflating parts of the universe. This appears to open the door again to the possibility that inflation, by itself, can eliminate the need for initial conditions. Now I would like to report on a new theorem, proved in collaboration with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth [42], which appears to close that door completely. 2

2. Alexander Vilenkin, “Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation,” (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204061) 2002

Stuart – we are back to the same old problem. You are quoting references arguing for a beginning to our universe. Something well supported by big bang theory. It’s not an issue in modern science. No-one (or hardly anyone) is trying to “avert the beginning of the universe.”

Barrow is not arguing for an “eternal universe” in that sense at all. He is just showing that universes that seed daughter universes are a consequence of inflationary big bang theory. So we have big bangs (and perhaps singularities – whatever that means) for specific universes but this in no way negates an “‘eternal’ or ’self-reproducing* inflationary universe” (here he applies “universe” to mean the overall sum of all [sequential and sibling] universes). You just can’t mechanically transfer concepts specific to the big bang of an individual universe to the whole structure of sequential and sibling universes.

(By the way – these ideas come out of modern inflationary big bang theory which has supplanted the “Standard Model” you keep referring to. The “Standard Model” could not explain the production of matter and radiation – inflationary models do).

Frankly, I don’t want to get back into the ping pong match based on such misunderstanding (comparing apples with pears). All I am pointing out is that the theory does throw up this possibility, Penrose et al. have perhaps confirmed the possibility in the last few months, and this makes your attempt to use scientific theory to support you logical assumption invalid.

It’s not a big deal but it does show how logic divorced from reality can be used to “prove” anything. Something science came to grips with long ago. That’s why modern science remains open minded about the concept of an ‘eternal’ or ‘self-reproducing’ universe.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Ken,

(1) The singularity represents an ultimate beginning. Anything ‘prior’ to this is metaphysics on principle because the singularity is the origin of all space, time, matter and energy. It represents the origin of the everything science can possibly discover from nothing. As I said, Edwards is very clear on this. In the singularity is the origin of the ‘whole structure of sequential and sibling universes.’ An ultimate beginning is not averted.

No-one (or hardly anyone) is trying to “avert the beginning of the universe.”

(2) Linde is trying to avoid an ultimate beginning. He does this by proposing a past-eternal universe (in the wider sense) beyond the singularity. But even he recognises that doing so is ‘somewhere at the boundary between physics and metaphysics.’

(3) Chaotic Inflationary models do not avoid the beginning of the ‘whole structure of sequential and sibling universes’ predicted on the Standard Big Bang Model as shown by Vilenkin’s theorem. And so we have scientific support for the second premise of the argument, namely the universe (even the wider universe outside our own space-time) had a beginning.

All I am pointing out is that the theory does throw up this possibility, Penrose et al. have perhaps confirmed the possibility in the last few months, and this makes your attempt to use scientific theory to support you logical assumption invalid.

(4) Speculative and un-proven theories such as Penrose’s that you adoringly refer to do not make logical arguments ‘invalid‘. The most science can hope for is to make this logical argument unsound. The difference is made clear here;
http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2009/what-makes-a-good-argument
But even if Penrose does manage to prove a universe existed prior to our own, on the basis of sound and valid philosophical arguments alone we have ample reason to distrust the conclusion we live in a past-eternal universe. Besides, science alone could ever conclude we live in a past-eternal universe – that is a philosophical conclusion.

It’s not a big deal but it does show how logic divorced from reality can be used to “prove” anything. Something science came to grips with long ago. That’s why modern science remains open minded about the concept of an ‘eternal’ or ’self-reproducing’ universe.

(5) On the strength of Vilenkin’s theorem using the terms ‘eternal’ and ‘self-reproducing’ to refer to a beginningless wider universe is misuse. These should only be applied to the future-eternal universe.
(6) Your dismissal of logic is troublesome, and so opportunistic it would be funny if it weren’t so horrifying. I agree that faulty logic can be used to prove anything, but as the logical philosophical proofs proffered have yet to be refuted there really is no reason, accept scientism, to accept that the beginning of the universe cannot be proved by logic alone.
(7) Scientist do take these logical proofs seriously. Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger write;

Can there really be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that, on the basis of well-known philosophical arguments, the answer is No.1
1. GFR Ellis, U Kirchner and WR Stoeger, “Multiverses and physical cosmology” (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305292v3) 2003

See also, Rüdiger Vaas, “Time before Time; Classifications of universes in contemporary cosmology, and how to avoid the antinomy of the beginning and eternity of the world” (http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0408111v1) 2003

Finally, referring to the very first comment you made in this thread.

I have always found this argument very unconvincing – even from a naïve logic point of view. It comes across so clearly as an argument skewed to support a preconceived belief.

After all this it seems to me, based upon your inability to give convincing reasons why the Kalam Cosmological argument fails that it’s actually the denial which is forced or motivated by preconceived beliefs.

Professor Keith Ward of Oxford has a interesting lecture, video and text are here:

http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=4&EventId=271

Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner writes: ‘The very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality’. Particles only exist when observed, he suggests, and so the reality of particles entails that consciousness is a fundamental element of reality, not just a by-product of some ‘real’ material world.

Von Neumann suggests that the observer creates phenomenal reality. A less extreme view would be to say that the observer, and the nature of the observer’s consciousness, creates the reality we perceive out of an underlying reality whose true nature must be forever hidden from us. Either way, it looks as if consciousness has a fundamental and ineliminable place in our conception of what the physical world is like. In other words, the physical is not simply there, apart from consciousness. Consciousness has to exist for physical reality to exist in the way it does, in relation to us – and we cannot get beyond that to a deeper reality, except in a purely mathematical sense. It is not just ‘secondary qualities’ like colour and smell that only exist in relation to a human observer. Now the very electrons and atoms out of which physical reality appears to be constituted only exist in relation to a human observer.

If consciousness plays such a key role in observed phenomena, does this not undermine a materialistic view of the universe? And does this not point to an ultimate Consciousness?

I am surprised no-one has respond to your comment, James. I have 2 comments:

1: Would you take your car to Keith Ward for servicing? Not if you are wise – you woulkd go to an auto-mechanic. Similarly – if you want to understand quantum mechanics go to a quantum physicist – not a theologian.

2: The point you are making is just an extreme interpretation of the measurement problem. Particles appear, decohere or become entangled via interaction with other objects – they are “measured” by these other objects. No consciousness is required.

Now, physicists when they talk about such phenomena often use metaphors like “measure,” “know”, etc. (useful material for quote miners with a preconceived belief and agenda). The whole subject is exceedingly difficult and “common sense” logic is just not applicable. Quantum mechanics therefore becomes a very fertile area for all sorts of charlatans and barrow pushers.

This is a general problem here at this blog. The sponsors want to use science – they don’t trust the scientists so they rely on material predigested and interpreted for them by the theologians. All aimed at justifying a preconceived belief.

James – you remember the problem you had supporting Ross and Craig regarding the cosmological constant (Fiddling with “fine-tuning”). You would have avoided that if you had instead relied on someone like Krauss – a scientist working in that area without a theological axe to grind. The same here – don’t take Wards word as “gospel” – at least in fields like quantum mechanics.

[...] The Kalam Cosmological Argument; See also The Cosmological Argument from Sufficient Reason and The Cosmological Argument from [...]

[...] for existence of a god” as often advance by William Lane Craig. This was also recently repeated on a local apologetics site. Simply put it’s  a 3-step argument that says: 1) Everything [...]

Ken,It seems very clear after reading thru this thread that you have had no success in undermining the KCA. The sponsors have clearly shown scientists in the field (i.e. Vilenkin and Borde to name a few) who have dispelled the possibility of ANY sequence of universes extending back into the infinite past but rather that there must be a point of ultimate singularity at a finite point in the past, this applies not only to standard big bang model but the inflationary model that you seems to think escapes this conclusion. At the end of the day anyone sitting on the fence in this discussion would clearly have to come down on the side of the KCA based on the philosophical, scientific and logical arguments presented, you do nothing at all to present a compelling or even cogent case

[...] Thinking Matters “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” [...]