I find cosmology to be a fascinating topic. And of course, I have always been asked by my skeptical friends to explain how I know the God of the Bible is best choice to serve and worship.
When it comes to evidence, the skeptical issue in our culture mostly enters into the religious dialogue in the following way: “Do we really know what we think we know-especially in religion- when our beliefs are not properly based on evidence?” And in the case of God, who isn’t some physical object, what kind of evidence should we expect to find? Verification has to do with how to test the meaning or truth of a claim. One the best solutions to handling the issue of evidence and arguments for God’s existence is to utilize what is called inference to the best explanation.
This type of explanation is commonly called “abduction” since it is a type of reasoning that is different from induction and deduction. Inference to the best explanation is commonly utilized by apologists that use the cumulative case method. In a cumulative case method, each argument has evidential value but will never lead to any kind of mathematical or logical certainty. The inference to the best explanation model takes into account the best available explanation in our whole range of experience and reflection. So having said this, we can now look at the wide range of phenomena that people observe-in other words, we observe the effect. For example, since we can’t observe gravity directly, we only observe its effects. And in the case of God who is not a physical object, we can’t observe him directly. Hence, we have to observe the effects He has left us. By the way, feel free to read the post: Who is God? Comparing Atheism, Theism, Deism, Pantheism, and Polytheism: A Closer Look
So what is one of the things we observe? For starters, the universe began to exist a finite time ago. What is the theistic response? A powerful, previously existing God brought the universe into existence without any pre-existing material. Hence, something comes from something. After all, how does something come into existence, uncaused out of nothing when there isn’t even the potentiality to produce anything at all? The naturalistic response is that the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing- or was perhaps self-caused (see some of the other possible objections below). Hence, something comes from nothing. Being comes from non-being.
With this in mind, I am going to talk about the Big Bang theory and cosmology. I have studied this topic quite a bit. But since I don’t have a doctorate in physics, etc., I will be appealing to some big names who are considered authorities in this field. For starters, what is the Big Bang theory? Here is the layman version:
“Big Bang Theory holds that everything in the known universe—all time, space, energy, and matter—was once contained in a point of infinite density known as a singularity. Scientists leave the “why” of that state of affairs to priests and poets. But in the next instant, they theorize, this point began expanding madly in size—pinhead, grapefruit, basketball—to a radius expressed in incomprehensibly large numbers.” (Kathy Sawyer, “Unveiling the Universe,” National Geographic, October 1999, 20).
If you want to study this topic in a deeper way, feel free to read my friend Neil Mammen’s article here called: Who is Agent X? Where did God come from? Proving that it is more rational to believe God exists than doesn’t. And doing so without using the Bible
While Christian apologist William Lane Craig has revived the horizontal form of the cosmological argument, Thomas Aquinas left the church with an apologetic for the vertical form of the same argument. While the former centers on how the universe began in some time in the past, the latter focuses on how the universe exists at this very moment. In other words, the horizontal form is interested in originating causality or the First Cause of the universe while the vertical form defends the need for conserving causality or a Sustainer of the universe. Let’s look a the horizontal form of the cosmological argument:
1. Everything that comes to be is caused by another.
2. The universe came to be.
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by another.
Carl Sagan once made the famous statement, “The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Unfortunately, more evidence has come into our hands long after Sagan made this statement famous.
Let’s look at this argument using an acronym from what my friend Frank Turek calls SURGE: These five lines of evidence will be given to support a beginning of the universe.
• S: Second law of thermodynamics
• U: Universe is expanding
• R: Radiation afterglow
• G: Great galaxy seeds
• E: Einstein’s theory of general relativity
Second law of thermodynamics
The second law basically says that, in a closed system (such as our universe), there is a finite amount of usable energy. In other words, the total amount of usable energy in our universe will eventually be consumed, and would have been already if the universe had existed eternally. This is possibly the most important pieces of evidence supporting a finite universe. One of the most well-know physicists today is Paul Davies. Davies says,
“Today, few cosmologists doubt that the universe, at least as we know it, did have an origin at a finite moment in the past. The alternative-that the universe has always existed in one form or one another-runs into a rather basic paradox. The sun and the stars cannot keep burning forever: sooner or later they will run out of fuel and die. The same is true of all irreversible physical processes; the stock and energy available in the universe to drive them out is finite, and cannot last for eternity. This is an example of the so-called second law of thermodynamics, which, applied to the entire cosmos, predicts that it is stuck on a way slide of degeneration and decay towards a final state of maximum entropy, or disorder. As this final state has not been reached, it follows that the universe cannot have existed for an infinite time.” (1)
Sagan even admitted that the second law of thermodynamics would imply a Creator but countered that the first law of thermodynamics shows that the cosmos is eternal and needs no creator. This, however, misunderstands the first law, which does not in its scientific form say anything about whether energy can or cannot be created, but merely that the existing amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant. (2)
Universe is expanding
In 1915, Albert Einstein introduced his theory of general relativity. Then, in 1917, Willem de Sitter predicted (based on general relativity) that the universe was expanding. Observational evidence for this prediction came a decade later, in 1927, when Edwin Hubble observed a “red shift” demonstrating that every observable galaxy was moving away from a central point. The most complete study made thus far has been carried out on the 200-inch telescope by Allan Sandage. “He compiled information on 42 galaxies, ranging out in space as far as 6 billion light years from us. His measurements indicate that the Universe was expanding more rapidly in the past than it is today. This result lends further support to the belief that the Universe exploded into being.” (3)
Radiation afterglow
As early as 1948, it was predicted that, if the universe exploded into being out of nothing, there would be an afterglow of radiation, that would still be detectable today. It wasn’t until 1965, though, that it was discovered (by accident) by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. This discovery, which earned Penzias and Wilson a Nobel Prize, was enough to convince most scientists that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning.
Great galaxy seeds
Once the Cosmic Background Radiation was discovered, scientists began predicting that it would have slight temperature variations that, in conjunction with gravity, would have aided in forming the galaxies. In 1992, George Smoot announced that they had found it using the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) space satellite. What’s more, the “ripples” were extremely precise, and even a slight variation would have caused the universe to collapse back onto itself or expand infinitely without forming any galaxies. In other words, we wouldn’t be here. Stephen Hawking, author of A Brief History of Time called this “the discovery of the century, if not all time.” (4)
Einstein’s theory of general relativity
Albert Einstein introduced his theory of general relativity in 1915. At the time, he considered it an “irritating” theory, because of its implications. See, he believed in the Steady State Theory, and general relativity implied that time, space, and matter all came into existence at once. To get around this, the great mathematician divided by zero in what is now referred to as the Cosmological Constant. Later, when Hubble discovered the red shift, Einstein went down to see for himself. He then admitted that the Cosmological Constant was the greatest mistake of his professional career. Moreover, general relativity reveals that space in our universe is not mere nothingness. Also, Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity shows time, space, and matter are co-relative. They are interdependent on one another-you cannot have one without the other. In the words of Roger Penrose, Einstein’s general relativity is “the most accurately tested theory known to science.” (5) Einstein’s theory shows that whatever the cause is of the universe, it must be:
Spaceless: Because it created space: Finite objects can be measured by how much space they occupy. They can be located somewhere which limits their ability to be somewhere else. With God since He has no materiality, He cannot be localized at a particular point.
Timeless: Because it created time.
Immaterial: Because it created matter.
Powerful: Because it created out of nothing.
Intelligent: Because the universe was precisely designed.
Personal: To convert a state of nothing into something.
We see that some of these characteristics of the First Cause resembles the God of the Bible.
Since the God of the Bible has no materiality, He cannot be localized at a particular point. God endures eternally, wholly above and separate from all the succession of time. God’s eternity (ever-present now) encompasses all the characteristics of time (past, present, future) in one moment (Genesis 21:33; Psalm 90:2). God is one without any parts. He is uncompounded, incomplex and indivisible, unique, and essentiality a Spirit being (John 1:18; 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15-16.
Furthermore, while matter is pure potency, God is Pure Act. Whatever has parts would have to be put together by something else which would mean the being is not Pure Act, but actually complex. And if it was a being that had parts, it would have the potential to be destroyed. A Pure Act cannot be divided; it has no potentiality. Whatever has no potentiality to be divided cannot be divided; there is nothing by which it can be divided. Being can be either simple or complex. It is impossible for there to be two simple beings, because there is nothing in a pure Being by which it could differ from another pure Being. God is all powerful but cannot do anything contrary to His nature, such as lie, deny Himself, change His mind, contradict Himself, or cease to exist (Malachi 3:6; 1 Samuel 15:19; Matthew 19:26; Hebrews 6:18;7:21; Revelation 19:6).
As Einstein wrote: “There is no such thing as an empty space, that is, a space without field.” Cosmologist Paul Davies points out that when a physicist asks how matter arose from nothing “that means not only, how did matter arise out of nothing, but ‘why did space and time exist in the first place, that matter may emerge from them?’ ” (6)
Here are some of the objections to the Big Bang theory and the need to assert an Agent behind the Big Bang:
Does Quantum Physics Shows that Subatomic Events Are Uncaused?
Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty is a principle of quantum mechanics which states that “the position and speed of a particle cannot be simultaneously known with complete certainty. According to this view, for example, it is possible to predict accurately what fraction of uranium atoms will radioactively disintegrate over the next hour, but it is impossible to predict which atoms will do so” It is reasoned that if some events are unpredictable they must be uncaused. However, Heisenberg’s principle is not a principle of uncausality but a principle of unpredictability. Second, it is only the position of a particular particle that cannot be predicted, not the overall pattern. Third, since the subatomic realm cannot be “observed” without bombarding it, the scientist cannot be sure what it is really like. Not all physicists agree with Heisenberg. Einstein’s response was, “God does not play dice with the universe.” (7) Furthermore, If the principle of causality is not valid, and causality is foundational to the discipline of science, then wouldn’t all scientific conclusions be questionable? Including quantum physics? How could it be that the only time science can be certain about its conclusions is during the experiments that confirm uncertainty?
Futhermore, Quantum explanations only work at sub-atomic levels, and do not apply to anything at the level of molecules or larger. No where has quantum explanations been shown to apply at the level of normal Newtonian physics. Everything is either caused by another, self-caused, or uncaused. This exhausts the possibilities. Self-caused existence is absurd, for one would have to exist before one existed; so the only alternative left is that something is uncaused.
What about the Multiple Universe Theory?
1. Even if we could show evidence for multiple universes this would only multiply the need for a Creator and Designer because each one would need creation and fine tuning to get started.
2. If true, who or what is keeping these universes from colliding?
3. There is no known mechanism that exists for generating such universes.
4. That itself would require impressive design. (8)
What about String Theory?
1.The theory that matter is comprised of strings of energy that undergo quantum vibrations in 10 or 11 dimensions of space-time.
2.This is highly speculative– not a shred of experimental evidence. Equations aren’t even developed yet. (9)
3. String theory just pushes the question one step further “Why do strings exist rather than nothing?”
3. By the way, my friend R.C. Metcalf is an expert on this issue. You can go to his blog at thinkagain.
What about chance?
“Chance” is not a cause– it is a word to describe mathematical possibilities. It has no causal power of its own. The definition of the word chance depends partly on the worldview agenda of the one doing the defining. Two usages are commonly confused when speaking about the origin of things: chance as a mathematical probability and chance as a real cause. The first is merely abstract. When rolling a dice the chances are one in six that the number six will come out on top. The odds are one in thirty-six that two dice will both come up six and one in 216 that three sixes will be thrown on three dice. These are abstract mathematical probabilities. But chance did not cause those three dice to turn up sixes. What did it was the force of throwing them, their starting position in the hand, the angle of the toss, how they deflected off objects in their way, and other results of inertia. Chance had nothing to do with it. (10) The basic fallacy of making chance into a causal power was stated well by R.C. Sproul:
“1. Chance is not an entity. 2. Nonentities have no power because they have no being. 3. To say that something happens or is caused by chance is to suggest attributing instrumental power to nothing” But it is absurd to claim that nothing produced something. Nothing does not even exist and, hence, has no power to cause anything. (11)
What caused God?
The principle of causality does not affirm that everything has a cause. It only asserts that everything that has a beginning (and so is finite) needs a cause. For example, if the universe had no beginning, then it does not need a cause of its beginning. Likewise, if God had no beginning, then neither does he need a cause. Only what has a beginning needs a cause. But few people argue that the universe had no beginning. Ultimately the universe needs a Cause that does not have a beginning, for the universe cannot spring into being out of nothing. (12)
Also, it is a category mistake by assigning to something a property which applies only to objects of another category. In other words, we don’t want to confuses two categories- the made and the unmade. Whatever is made has composition. Obviously, from the Orthodox Christian view, God has no composition. The Hebrew word for one is “echad” which leaves room for a plurality within a unity of substance- but there is no implication of a plurality of beings or parts within a being. Scripture admonishes mankind about making any physical image of God (Exodus 20:4). God is pure spirit ( John 4:24). He has no parts and is an immaterial Being. Furthermore, since God did not come to be, he does not need an explanation. If we had to continually offer an explanation for an explanation it would lead to an infinite regress. There would be no science.
Sources:
1. Davies, P. “The Big Bang and Before, ”The Thomas Aquinas Lecture Series, Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA: March 2002.
2. Geisler, N. L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 680-681.
3. Jastrow, R. God and the Astronomers. New York: W.W. Norton, 1978, 95.
4. Ross, H. The Creator and the Cosmos: How The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God, 2d, ed. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1995, 19.
5. Penrose. R, Shadows of the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, 230.
6. Geisler, 104-106.
7. Ibid, 356-357.
8. This was pointed out in my friend Frank Turek’s presentation of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.”
9. Ibid.
10. Geisler, 125-126.
11. Sproul, R.C, Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology. Grand Rapids: Baker,1994; cited in Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 125-126.
12. Geisler, 120-123.
13. Note: The SURGE acronym is found in Geisler N.L. and Frank Turek. I Do Not Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004. It can also be found on my friend Sean Graham’s blog: http://defendingchr ist.com. Permission was granted to use the SURGE acronym.
Filed under: 1
No: on quantum level events are probabilitstic, not deterministic and speaking of one specific cause for an event is incorrect. What’s more, the principle of causality itself is an axiom without real empirical support. Who knows–there may be uncaused things…
Secondly, the Universe that we speak of having begun is only our observable spacetime bubble. Modern cosmology strongly implies that the Universe in the sense of :everything there is extends infinitely and eternally and therefore your second point is falsified.
Kalam argument has been shown not to hold repeatedly; Craig’s insitence on using it only serves to point out his ignorance of modern cosmology as well as his fundamental dishonesty (the specific objections to that and his factual errors when speaking of the underlying science and fine-tuning have been pointed out to him over and over again–and he still keeps on using them in his arguments).
Oops. Placeholder.:)
Jorg,
If you are saying that the universe is eternal, I just showed in the post why it can’t be eternal. Would you disagree with someone like Paul Davies? And I doubt Craig is being dishonest about anything. For someone like him who did his doctorate on this topic, and has been debating on on it for quite some time, I think he knows cosmology quite well (certainly better than you and me). He knows all the counterarguments. And as far as the fine-tuning argument, I don’t have enough faith that chance can do that.. The law of causality is the foundation of science. You may want to see the DVD The Privileged Planet. The law of causality is also one of the First Principles of thought. Nothing does not exist, and only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of “cause” implies an existing thing that has the power to effect another. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing.
If you deny the law of causality’s importance (and maybe you are not doing that), it would be tough to do science. Are you saying that when scientists look at cosmology, etc… they just say we don’t need to look for a cause? Are they saying, after all, some things are not caused, so who cares about the universe, etc…?
Jorg,
By the way, I have never heard anyone say that the law of causality needed empirical support. As I said, it is part of what are called First Principles. Without first principles, there would be no knowledge. In other words, since first principles are self-evident truths they require no foundation. If you are a materalist (and I don’t know if you are), you may want to ask where such immaterial entities such as First Principles come. from?
The eternity of the Universe within either ST or LQG is axiomatic. Whetehr either one of these theories is correct is certainly up in the air, but dismissing them as “too speculative” is intellectually dishonest: they are mathematically coherent and certainly solve several outstanding problems.
Your doubts about dishonesty of Craig are misguided: see http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/fiddling-with-fine-tuning/ and http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/godless-cosmology/. The latter one, especially: if it isn’t intellectually dishonest to cherry-pick a quote and claim the opposite of what the author clearly states I don’t know what is (I suspect Craig has not read the texts in question; his direct misrepresentation of Davies is also notable). (Disclaimer: I am not the author of the blog linked to).
Re: your Davies quote: he specifically means our Universe; not the landscape of string theory, or stringy vacuum state, or the pulsing entiy of loop quantum cosmology, or the bulk, or anything of the kind. Most people confuse the two meanings of the word; they need to be kept separate.
Re: empirical support. Causality appears to obtain in our Universe; however, deterministic causality is different from probabilistic causality which is significant on quantum levels. What caused a particular pair of virtual particles to pop into existence at this particular moment. Nothing, except for a time/energy formalism of the uncertainty principle. What caused that paticular quantum fluctuation/tunneling on this particular section of the manifold. Again, the same. What’s more, since the total energy of the Universe is precisely zero, its existence does not even violate any of the known conservation laws and symmetries. That means that our Universe could be a cosmic blip, an equivalent of a virtual particle in search of its partner that will annihilate and go back into nothingness (actually, quantum vacuum) it came from as soon as it finds it.
And, of course, causality may be a feature of this Universe only. It is difficult to imagine how an a-causal universe would operate, but, of course, our brains did not evolve to do so. It could be that the SET topos under which this universe (including the possible string landscape) seems to operate is only a local phenomenon.
Now remember that I am not making a claim to have proved the non-existence of God; only lack of necessity of His existence. And yes, as a matter of fact I do disagree with Davies on several points, most philosophical, but some specifically technical. It’s OK…:).
Oops! Sorry about the forgotten bold tag…I wish there was a way to edit comments…:(
Oops again: I must state, for the record, that Craig certainly does not know cosmology better than me. It is not a boast, but a simple statement of a fact. There are plenty of people who are better than me (I am not a professional cosmologist, but have studied it on graduate level and try to keep up with the work in the field), but Craig is certainly not one of them.
I know Davies means our universe. No doubt about that. I did not see where Craig misquoted him. The first law of thermodynamics is a law of energy conservation.Another, more accurate, way to state this law of conservation is that “The amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.” This says nothing about how the energy came to be
in the universe. Is Einstein’s theory right or wrong? Have you thought about debating Craig? If you are better than him, man, I say go for it. I am having him come to a college campus here in Ohio. Maybe want to see if he will debate you here? I have seen all your points in Craig’s work.
Craig’s misquotation of Davies is in exaggerating wildly the constraints on the fine-structure constant. In all fairness, it is D’Souza who misquotes Hawking as claiming that there “must have been” a singularity, when Hawking specifically states that he does not think there was. Craig only picked that one up and ran with it.
I find Craig’s arguments to be entirely without substance and convincing only to someone who already believes in their correctness. Occasionally, they border on offensive (as in his justifications of genocide and the killing of children in OT as God’s will and an ultimately “good” thing).
And, an apology for the number of posts (like cell-phone text messages, I think of something else immediately after posting one!): GR is certainly correct on the scales we deal with, but it is almost certainly not the most fundamental theoretical underpinning of our Universe. String theory is a pretty good contender, still, although not without problems of its own. I really like LQG/LQC, however, simply because the maths are so pretty…
Hi Jorg, I’m a bit confused, are you saying that LQC eliminates the need for a starting universe? I.e. are you saying that LQC indicates that we end up with infinite previous universes?
Jorg,
I am doing some research to see if Craig misquoted Davies. And I don’ t think the proper thing to say is he is dishonest. If I write a book and misquote someone by accident…I would be a little upset if someone said I was now dishonest. That is an attack on my character. Maybe I made an honest mistake and I can correct it. That can happen and does happen in research and writing. I still don’t see what your thoughts are about the second law.
Yes, LQC implies an infinite series of universes, with the entropy being reset at Planck time.
As far as the misquote: see the links I provided. Both the original Davies quote and the Craig one are given there; judge for yourself.
Jorg,
For what is worth, I checked with Paul Davies about the Craig quote.. that I said here in the post. His grad assistant said Craig was correct on that one. So we can lay that to rest. You can take it up with Davies about his view of the universe being finite.
Eric
Of course our universe is finite. Nobody said it wasn’t. The question is whether the Big Bang itself was a beginning or only a phase transition. If the latter, all of Craig’s arguments are null and void, and it is a live option currently. Regardless of it being found to be correct or not eventually, it is dishonest for Craig to imply that no alternatives to his view exist (he is either ignorant of current physics and cosmology or, erm, embroidering the truth a bit), just as it is dishonest for him and D’Souza to quote Hawking on the necessity for the initial singularity, when later in the same paragraph from which the quote is taken Hawking says quite directly that he does not believe it to be the case. That is known as quote-mining.
Am I right in saying though that, LQC does not require infinite universes. It only provides for a mechanism for them.
BTW have you and I had this conversation before?
I don’t know if we did. I have had these conversation several times before however, so it is possible.
LQC is a reformulation of the old cyclical cosmology, rewritten from a loop quantum gravitational perspective and getting rid of entropy problem that had sunk the previous version of cyclical universe. The presence of one past Universe before ours strongly implies an infinity of such,
Yes, and I may be willing to accept that as a possibilty and still may.
However if I understand correctly, Arvind Borde and a few others in an MIT paper titled “Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete” said “a cosmological model which is inflating – or just expanding sufficiently fast – must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions”. I’m still wrestling with the ideas and equations but it looks like this peer reviewed accepted theorem indicates that there may be a few inflations and contractions but it forces a finite begining at some point. Your feedback on this would be interesting.
So this would mean that even if LQC/LQG was able to be verified (has it?) it would still indicate that it needs an initial universe.
By the way I’m not an expert or even student of LGC but you seem to have done a fair bit of study on it. May I ask: does it have any verifiable proofs? Or is it currenlty just one of the models that may possibly work.
Jorg,
I am sorry, can you provide that link again? If it is the quote that I put in this link- the one that I already checked on, I will have to take what his grad assistant said over what your link said the (the quote was fine by Craig). And as far as Craig not providing any other possibilities, that is not true. He covers a good majority of them- and the problems with yours as well.
The links are in this conversation. Since they give direct quotes relevant to the situation, you can see the distortions and dishonesty with your own two eyes. It is called “compare and contrast”: this is what A says, and this is what B claims that A says. We can see that A says nothing of the kind, and therefore B is either lying or did not understand the meaning of A’s statement.
Craig dismisses infinite universe out of hand using dubious philosophical principles that would not pass muster in Phil 101 class. He is full of rhetoric and devoid of substance. I suggest placing your support behind someone else. And now that you are beginning to use appeals to authority I am becoming quickly bored…
Jorg,
I guess I don’t understand. You say the universe is not finite and then you say Craig dismisses an infinite universe out of hand. So if you say the universe is finite and Craig supports that… why should you care. And I hate to break it you, but there is nothing wrong with appealing to an authority. Craig has certainly earned it… and probably knows alot more about cosmology then you do. And to say his arguments would not make it beyond Phil 101 is beyond silly. If you think you are better than him, come here and debate him. And by the way, if you are bored… no problem. I have plenty to do with my time.
You are still confusing THIS particular universe with the ensemble of all Universes (multiverse? string vacuum landscape?). The former is finite; the latter isn’t. But the former is only a small subset of the latter.
Craig’s arguments are not laughed at just by me but by the majority of philosophers and astrophysicists ( and I know the latter to be the case, since those are the departments I am most associated with, having done my work in astrophysics and then, evolutionary ecology and then planetary science). An argument against eternal Universe based on infinite regress is laughable. And an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: saying that you would rather believe an unnamed “assistant” versus specific quotes demonstrating my point is definitely one.
My statement that I know cosmology better than Craig is based on simple empirical observation: he does not appear to be aware of the latest developments, for one (either that or he is lying). And, again only for the record, and not as any kind of proof: I am fully secure in my knowledge of modern cosmology )how is Craig’s knowledge of Weinberg’s demonstrations for the development of initial anisotropies, for example? And nowhere does Craig demonstrate any knowledge of mathematics of physics beyond freshman level. I am supposed to take his arguments seriously?)
And no, I have better things to do than try to argue with apologists and creationists outside of brief online spats: in my opinion, if a person in 2009, existing in the state of deliberative equilibrium, believes such nonsense, their logical capacity appears to be impaired to such a degree that arguing with them is pointless except to demonstrate their fallacies to possible observers.
Jorg,
If you have taken logic, it is okay to appeal to an authority in many situations. So as far as you saying it is a logical fallacy doesn’t make much sense. And since you say that I give an unnamed source- go ahead and contact Megan Fisk- Paul Davies assistant at Megan.Fisk@asu.edu. You can ask her about the quote I gave in the link from Craig’s book Reasonable Faith- 3rd edition. She was the one that said it was accurate.
Jorg,
Make sure you see Storm’s response above.
Here’s my response again as I did is as a “reply” and it doesn’t show up at the bottom of the queue of responses so it’s hard to find. I’ve clarified a few points on rereading it.
***
Yes, and I may be willing to accept that (infinite sequential universes) as a possibilty and still may.
However if I understand correctly, Arvind Borde and a few others in an MIT paper titled “Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete” said “a cosmological model which is inflating – or just expanding sufficiently fast – must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions”. I’m still wrestling with the ideas and equations but it looks like this peer reviewed accepted theorem indicates that there may be a few inflations and contractions but it forces a finite begining at some point. Your feedback on this would be interesting.
So this would mean that even if LQC/LQG was able to be verified (has it?) it would still indicate that it needs an initial universe.
By the way I’m not an expert or even student of LGC but you seem to have done a fair bit of study on it. May I ask: does it have any verifiable proofs? Or is it currenlty just one of the models that may possibly work.
I do think we’ve must have had this conversation word for word before.
Yep, saw it. Bonde et all are speaking of a specific class of inflationary spacetimes. However, a.It is a subset of all inflationary spacetimes under consideration, which is b.a subset of all possible spacetimes (inflation is not a necessity), and c.are to be taken separately from other considerations (e.g., Big Bang as a phase transition from stringy vacuum implies that our spacetime had a beginning, but itself is a subset of a larger manifold). The problem again is not that any of those considerations disprove the concept of God; rather they simply undermine Craig’s argument for the necessity of God. In order for Craig’s argument to hold, he has to conclusively rule out a whole family of solutions. He has done nothing of the kind and is, in fact, ignoring most of them.
An appeal to authority is indeed an informal logical fallacy, and has always been (at least since I took an introduction to logic class 20 years ago or so….:)).
Which quote of Davies’ are we talking about? Is it that the Universe is finite? Indeed, as I have said repeatedly, it is: no problem here. I am talking about the fine-tuning quote in which Craig and others claim that the weak force had to be tuned to the order of 10^130–none of the physicists they reference have ever said that. Or is it D’Souza and Craig’s reference to Hawking in which they manage to get the gist of an entirely clear paragraph exactly backwards?
LQC as well as string theory is a completely hypothetical construct (which is why I am not arguing for either one of them). However, both are completely consistent theories: what we have here is, again, not a proof of a specific scenario, but a demonstration of a possibility for a thoroughly naturalistic origin for this universe, which destroys any argument that depends at its core on the essential impossibility of such scenarios. It is akin to a creationist argument that abiogenesis is impossible. To refute it, all I have to do is demonstrate a plausible scenario by which abiogenesis may occur. This scenario does not have to be the correct one (we may never know which one of the several pathways under consideration currently actually happened–if any). All it has to be is possible.
Jorg,
As far as being possible, I could go on and on about what is logically possible. But the question is what has the best explanatory power. In every day life, we typically prefer explanations that are more likely and probable, not just what is logically possible. As far as the fine tuning quote, that is not the one I checked on. I checked on the Davies quote about the universe being finite. So we can lay that to rest. Even if Craig did misquote the fine tuning argument …like I said, I still don’t have the faith to believe that chance could give us the universe we have.
Metaphysically speaking, chance is not a causative agent. Hence, chance does not or cause anything. It’s a prediction about statistical probabilities. Sure, you could always say it is logically possible that chance could do it? But does that have adequate explanatory power to explain all the data at hand. And it is not an informal fallacy to appeal to an authority. As long as you follow the proper guidelines, it is fine to do it. And if it is an informal fallacy, then a good majority of textbooks out there have this fallacy in them. I suppose that is logically possible. Right? I am not sure if you have read Craig’s research on the cosmology issue. He covers just about all the current possibilities such as inflationary theory, string theory, quantum mechanics, etc.
Yes, indeed. But the existence of God has zero explanatory power since it still begs the question of God’s origin, for one. Of course, it is also a useless proposition because I can use it as an explanans for literally anything. why? Because God made it so.
It is an explanation of last resort, and the last resort is far from having been reached. Again, a consistent mathematical framework that fits observations and solves outstanding problems (as both string theory and LQC do) is preferable even if it not (at this point) empirically demonstrable (after all, neither is God).
As far as the damn quote: Craig equivocates from the (obvious) finiteness of our universe to the (far from certain) finiteness of the ensemble of all stringy vacua. Hence , incorrect, since Davies clearly means the former and says nothing at all about the latter. (I generally find it curious that Craig arrives at conclusions drastically different tha the scientists he quotes hold).
And “inflationary theory, string theory, quantum mechanics, etc” are NOT different explanations in any sense, but simply aspects of the same thing (Our Universe appears to have been born out of stringy vacuum via a phase transition of the Big Bang, and inflated later in accordance with the specific rules of QM, for example). The main contenders for pre-Big-Bang Universe however are string theory and loop quantum cosmology (actually, the latter is definitely much less popular, but I prefer it for purely aesthetic reasons).
Perhaps chance is not a causative agent in a metaphysical sense (but I despise 99% of metaphysics: an early Nozick and later scientific realist influence shows…). What is important here, though, is that there is a whole class of events that do not require a causative agent, as it appears. Virtual particle production and quantum tunnelling are only some of them. Phase transitions in slowly expanding stringy vacuum of increasing curvature is another; the expansion of such vacuum is another. for more details, see Gasperini’s books, or just look on arxiv.org: plenty of work on the subject there. For rather thorough refutations of Craig’s attempts, see Stenger (in general, a good source on the naturalistic underpinnings of the Universe). Anyway, yes: probabilistic events and quantum fluctuations do indeed have adequate explanatory power: they work for many events that we know and observe empirically. And you are correct: the majority of textbooks out there are full of informal logical fallacies, including appeals to authority (except for, perhaps, mathematical and graduate texts in life and physical sciences). That is why it is important to read primary sources as well as do your own work (nowhere more important than in physics: one cannot claim knowledge of any of its subfields without working the derivations through for oneself: something I deeply doubt Craig did).
To sum up: there is no need for God in modern cosmology. Period. That does not mean that modern cosmology disproves God, far from it: I only take issue with claims that it somehow demonstrates his necessity; hence I see Craig’s claims as either thoroughly befuddled or intentionally dishonest. After years of hearing his claims, I lean to the latter, since the flaws in his thinking have been pointed out to him repeatedly and yet he does not do anything to correct them. On the other hand, this is the guy who attempted to justify genocide and the murder of children from divine command, so what do you expect?
Jorg,
can we separate the threads. I.e. the argument about appealing to authority and what Craig says etc. from the one that I am talking about.
Thanks
I read Borde’s paper as not being only a special class. What classes are you limiting it to? Maybe I missed that.
You said: “it still begs the question of God’s origin”.
I confess that this is a bit puzzling to me as whatever we propose as an alternative also requires us to ask about the origin of that. Perhaps I’m missing something in what you are proposing.
I guess my issue is: why is asking ‘what the origin of anything that has always existed’ a valid question? Unless I am mistaken, 50 years ago when we thought the universe always existed, we had no question about its origins. It seems a logical requirement that if the Universe had always existed it would need no cause because anything that begins to exist needs a cause. (BTW I’m not quoting Craig or appealing to him, I’m quoting some much earlier scientists and thinkers).
Now we could argue that there is nothing that has always existed. But that surely would be a different argument altogether vs. the argument that if it did exist it would need a cause.
Here’s my understanding. If something had always existed, there is no event causally or moment temporally that preceeds its existance, thus it could not have a cause. It would seem illogical to argue against this definition. You could dispute the definition but then again we would be arguing that “nothing eternal exists”, not that “nothing eternal has a cause”.
What am I missing?
Can you explain perhaps why any eternal thing would need a cause? I’m sure you have a good reason, but I seem to be missing it.
Jorg seems to have left the building.
Jorg are you out there? I was hoping for a response of some sort. Perhaps you missed my last few posts.
Ah! No, just forgot all about it; sorry!
But: the eternal nature of the Universe has been implicitly accepted for most of the history of science. In some form, however. Big Bang , despite popular misrepresentations of it, has never really put that idea to rest. Once you follow through the thinking and evidence for the Big Bang, you realize that it appears to be strictly a phase transition and no standard models say anything about what happened before Planck time. It can be God, if you wish, I suppose, but there is no eviedence for it. Current models, however, use other tools to derive possible conditions before the Big Bang. (One does not need inflation, either, rendering the paper in question moot!).
Now, the question of “cause” is a thorny one: an event does not need one specific deterministic cause in order to happen. Virtual particles and quantum fluctuations are like that. It isn’t that they are stricltly uncaused but that they happen probabilistically and hence no direct path of causality exists for them. Our Universe is likely to be one such (I am repeating myself, but if our Universe is indeed a quantum fluctuation on an 11D manifold it would have the qualities we observe, such as the total energy of zero and escape velocity of c: in essence, we are living inside a black hole).
On eternal things: of course, they do not need a cause (I do not fall into the Dawkins’ attempt to counter this by invoking infinite regresss). I question your assumption that that eternal thing is God and not the Universe itself (by which I mean the Universe in a wide, cosmological sense rather than the narrow, astronomical sense). In essence, you are arbitrarily stopping the aforementioned infinite regress at a point you are comfortable with. Why should you? Once you try to put religious dogma aside, you should see that there is no reason to do that at all. I stop one level of complexity before you, that”s all. Of course, I could be wrong and there is an infinite succession of causes, but why think that way? Stringy vacuum, at least, is pretty well defined and obeys most requirements like a semi-tamed beastie that it is. And it is eternal (read Gasperini for more on that).
OK I think we may be rehashing we agree about. Let me see if I can state somethine we both agree and then move from there. We both agree that have only three options since we know that our current universe in it’s current state is not infinite. So we are left with:
a. The universe continues to cycle infinitely contracting or expanding or through some mechanism that so far as we can tell has left no tell tale physical signs. This while not refuting the existence of a “god” does not require one.
b. There are infinite universes constantly being generated infinitely. Our Universe is just one of them. This again while not refuting the existence of a “god” does not require one.
c. There is only one or a limited number of universes (i.e. no infinite universes). This WOULD require a God.
Can we agree on these 3 then we can move on.
OK I think we may be rehashing what we both agree about. Let me see if I can state somethine we both agree and then move from there. We both agree that have only three options since we know that our current universe in it’s current state is not infinite. So we are left with:
a. The universe continues to cycle infinitely contracting or expanding or through some mechanism that so far as we can tell has left no tell tale physical signs. This while not refuting the existence of a “god” does not require one.
b. There are infinite universes constantly being generated infinitely. Our Universe is just one of them. This again while not refuting the existence of a “god” does not require one.
c. There is only one or a limited number of universes (i.e. no infinite universes). This WOULD require a God.
Can we agree on these 3 then we can move on.
Let me know if I missed an option.
If you disagree that c) requires a God, I’d be glad to focus on it for a bit.