The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Eudaimonist]

We know that an infinite past cannot be possible because we are here today.

I agree.

You maintain that uranium is not a "finite" resource. I think you mean to say, rather, that the "amount" of uranium is not "finite". Therefore, "finite" in this usage is not with regards to what is temporal but what is quantitative. For if you maintain that in a temporal sense, uranium is not finite, you are actually saying that it has existed eternally or infinitely; but we know this cannot be the case.

No need to pick my word choice apart. I meant, of course, that uranium is not a limited resource in the sense that there is a natural way for new uranium to be produced.

When I say that there is radioactive uranium that is at the moment decaying into lead, that simply means that even though supernovas produce uranium, as you state, I take your word for it, supernovas have not always existed. You see, the universe (which consists of many exploding supernovas) has not always existed, for if it had, then there would be no exploding supernovas because according to the Law of Entropy, as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they would have all exploded and dissolved into disorder, and therefore, there would be no radioactive uranium decaying into lead. It would be all lead.

You are talking about "normal" conditions in our universe as it is now. I'm not certain that entropy can't be reversed under unusual conditions, e.g. with colliding branes in String Theory. At least, I can't say that we can know with great certainty that what you are saying is guaranteed true.

The universe cannot have a prior material cause because if it did, then it did not really begin to exist!

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

And this position would be contradictory to all of the scientific evidence as well as philosophical evidence

What is "philosophical evidence"? Do you mean philosophical arguments?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

First, even if we grant that your argument establishes the necessity of an "uncaused cause", it is not accurate to say that you have established the need for a supernatural uncaused cause, much less a personal and intelligent uncaused cause.

I understand clearly what you are saying.


Let me see if I can unpack this clearly and concisely.

The universe is defined as the whole of material reality. According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, all space, all time, and all matter came into existence at a specific point many years ago. This has been corroborated by scientific observations and philosophical argumentation. References are listed in the apologia.

Now, we must ask, if this is true, which it has been shown to be beyond a reasonable doubt, the question remains: what type of entity had the ability to bring this state of affairs about?

Remebering here, that an effect (the universe) cannot be greater than it's cause. So logically, we follow with: what is greater than the universe?

Now, I of course have supplied just a few attributes that would be necessary of such an entity, but we need not automatically jump and say: "GOD DID IT"!!! This is not necessary. You can logically determine what attributes an entity must possess in order to create the universe by looking at the universe itself. Whatever this enitity is, it must be greater than the universe in all respects in order for it to be able to create the universe.

What I will do now is allow you to come up with some ideas of what such an entity might be and we will look at them and see if they could fit the criteria required.

Second, how can we even make sense of supernatural causes resulting in natural effects? Our common notions of causality apply to the natural world.

This too is a good question.


We need not have complete understanding of something in order for us to know that it is a cause of something.


In forensic science, investigators who are trying to determine who is responsible for a murder, do not actually have to understand and know everyting there is to know about the crime scene, the victim, and the available evidence in order to determine who committed the crime.

Detectives use the Principle of Uniformity, which states that causes in the past were like the causes that we observe today.


Detectives cannot go back in time and witness the murder again. Nor can we go back in time to witness the act of creation. Nor can the detectives revive the victim and go into a laboratory to conduct some kind of experiment that will allow them to observe and repeat the crime.

They must utilize other methods which yield results that can be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, these methods are so sure, that people can be sentenced to death on the basis of evidence gathered from such methods.


The Principle of Uniformity tells us that the world works in the past just like it works today, especially when it comes to causes. When we look at the past and specifically the evidence that the universe had a beginning, we simply investigate and observe how our world works today and we can make inductive observations and inferential judgments as to what would have been necessary to bring about the Big Bang.


In the same way, detectives can piece together clues and evidence left behind by the perpetrator to compose an accurate picture of what happened at the crime scene. They observe, compile, research, question, infer, and compile all of this evidence together and they follow the evidence wherever it leads.


In like manner, when we take the evidence of the beginning of the universe i.e all the scientific, philosophic, biological, forensic, etc. etc., and put them together and follow it to where it leads us, it is going to lead us to a truth that is knowable, and to a truth that is logically, reasonably, and rationally coherent.

An effect is not unlike its cause. What you are positing in this argument, however, is that there is a supernatural cause that is radically different from its natural effect. To our knowledge, this has never been observed.

Once again, it need not be required of us to have observed an event to be able to say beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened.


For example:


1. Mt. Rushmore

2. The Grand Canyon


Mt. Rushmore is a mountain in which there are I believe four faces of famous American men. Now, none of us were there when these men's faces were effected into the mountain.

What would we say was the cause of these faces in the mountain? An intelligent designer who designed before hand what the faces would look like, how big they would be, and where they would go who then caused the faces to be chisled out of the rock...


or...


A naturalistic explanation such as random rainstorms, erosion, and wind which caused the faces to be etched into the rock?

Any sane person would choose the former. Why? Because it is in keeping with the Principle of Uniformity and also the Law of Causality.



2. The Grand Canyon is a vast open space out west in America.

What would we say was the cause of this vast open space in the ground?

Would we say that men over time had systematically dug out this vast open space with their hands, and rudimentary shovels?

Or would we say that it was caused by natural occurances, i.e rain erosion, wind etc. etc.


Any sane person would maintain the latter! Why? Because it is in keeping with the Principle of Uniformity and the Law of Causality.

You are taking our common idea of causality as it applies to the natural and saying that it must also apply outside the natural world.

Notice here in the apologia what is said.

We take the evidence we have compiled in the natural world. We ask: Where does this evidence point to? It is the evidence that we follow not the Law of Causality.

The Law of Causality speaks intuitively to us in our capacity to reason and says: "The universe must have a cause, because it began to exist, so follow the evidence."

The Law of Causality is the impetus and guide of the evidence we have. It tells us to take the evidence and ask: "What could have been the cause of the universe according to what we know of it?"

We have plenty enough evidence to take and place before us and honestly say: "Where does it lead?"

If only one line of scientific argumentation were taken from the apologia, i.e Einstein's work, we could follow it to it's logical conclusion. But we have much more than one line.

This is one argument for the existence of God, there are several others and many would say they are even more convincing than this one!

And if the evidence leads, as we have been shown that it does, to an entity that is greater than the universe, then this must be accepted as the truth. And herein do many fail to continue on. For if they admit that the evidence points to a supernatural entity, then they understand that if they hold to a position that does not, then they are wrong, and unfortunately many are unwilling to accept this.

We have read several of the confessions of atheistic and agnostic scientists and astronomers who were indignant and irritated and repulsed by the idea, nevertheless, they had to admit that the evidence was undeniable.

 

[Elioenai26]

I have ten coins in my pocket. Do you believe that to be true?

I would want to investigate to find out if it is reasonable for me to believe what you say. I would not just take your word for it, you may be lying.

That is a good point which needs to be made. If Christianity can be shown to be false, then I, as a person who believes truth is important, would have no reason to adhere to it. I would rather be disposed to seeking the truth than following a religion for the sake of that religion. In like manner, if evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that God does exist, then an objective minded person in search of truth should follow the evidence where it leads. And be honest enough to admit that he was wrong, as I would have to be if I was wrong.

 

[Elioenai26]

For several reasons I have problems with this premise that is so often brought up as being self-evident.
1. Concluding from the laws observed within the universe on the laws that apply to the universe itself is jumping to conclusions.

I do not understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the Law of Causality cannot be used when determining whether or not the universe has a cause? If this is what you are stating, then what causes you to come to this conclusion? The Law of Causality is undeniable and inescapable in any scientific observation or philosophical argument which intends to teach us about the world in which we live.

The whole scientific method is built upon this Law, for Francis Bacon, the father of modern science says: "True knowledge is knowledge by causes."(The New Organon 1620; reprint, Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1960), 121

And

Skeptic David Hume admits: " I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause." (in J.Y.T. Greig, ed., The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols. New York: Garland, 1983), 1:187.

The Law of Causality is just as indespensible in research about the universe as it is in research conducted in the universe.

2. If, however, you insist on the validity of this conclusion we have to consistently apply it to all options that are offered for an "explanation". Your own final conclusion (a being external to the universe created matter, space and time) violates this criterium just as much - since nowhere in this universe do we observe non-physical, timeless, spaceless (in short: "spirituality") being able to create matter. If it is true that scientists postulate causality, this idea of "causality" is certainly not meant and not covered by it. It doesn´t match the very concept that you are appealing to.

Earlier you stated that:

"I have problems with this premise that is so often brought up as being self-evident. Concluding from the laws observed within the universe on the laws that apply to the universe itself is jumping to conclusions."

Now you state in the above that:

"If it is true that scientists postulate causality..."

It seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that you think that the Law of Causality is something that is not held as being self-evident by most scientists. To this I shall simply respond by saying that they would be out of a job if they maintained this view!

You also maintain that the Uncaused Cause violates the Law of Causality, however this is clearly false. For the premise is:

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

Know there are two possibilites for anything that exists. Either:

1. it has always existed and is therefore uncaused

or...

2. it had a beginning and was caused by something else (it cannot be self-caused, because it would have had to exist already in order to cause anything.)

The entity which caused the universe cannot belong to category two, but must belong to one. Why? Because the criteria required for the creation out of the universe demands that this creating entity be self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial; because this entity created time, space, and matter.

Remember, an effect cannot be greater than it's cause.

3. If the reason why "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is considered self-evident is our observation within the universe, we get a very particular meaning of "beginning", since nowhere in this universe have we ever observed something "beginning" in the strict sense of the word. All we observe is permanent transformation of matter. So when we describe our observations as "the beginning of existence" we are actually using "beginning" in the meaning of "transformation".

Here´s the rub: If we do not want to invoke false equivocations and remain consistent with "beginning" and "cause" as they are necessarily meant in the first premise, this statement has to read "Something physical transformed into the universe at some point in the distant past".

This conclusion is wrong primarily in the fact that Einstein's theory of General Relativity verified to five decimal places demands that all material reality including time, space, and matter came to be and came to be co-relatively or interdependently.

Let us again review theses implications from notable scientists in their related fields of study:

From atheistic physicist Stephen Hawking:

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." (The Beginning of Time Lecture, Stephen Hawking British Theoretical Physicist and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.)

Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow confesses:

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." (Wikipedia Robert Jastrow)

In an interview Jastrow states: "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." (Wikipedia Robert Jastrow)

Although Arthur Eddington a contemporary of Einstein found the idea repgunant, he had to admit: "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."(Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, New York: Macmillan, 1933, 178)

Why do they maintain that "supernatural forces" were at work? Very simply because the Big Bang was the beginning point of the entire physcial universe. Time, space, and matter came into existence at that point. There was no natural world or natural law prior to! Since a cause cannot come after it's effect (to maintain that it could would be to violate the Law of Causality) nor can an effect be greater than it's cause, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang. Therefore, it logically and rationally follows that there must be something outside of nature, something that transcends the natural, to be able to accomplish this. That is what supernatural means, above, or beyond the natural.

Note also this contradiction: Here you say: "The universe began to exist at some point in the distant past", whereas in your final conclusions you postulate that time is a property that was created along with the universe.

No contradiction at all sir. When I say distant past, I simply mean that the universe was not created yesterday, or 5 years ago, or 500 years ago, or 5,000 years ago, but a very long time ago (according to our standards).

And yes, time began at the Big Bang. Saying that the Big Bang happened a long time ago is not a contradiction therefore.

 

[Elioenai26]

It's interesting how a concept, like causality, that has meaning for phenomena in the natural world is taken to apply beyond the natural world in this argument. The term's familiar usage is being exploited, but it might not even make sense to use it in speaking of something "beyond" the natural.



Which raises the question of whether it even makes sense to postulate "a time before" the universe was created.

If all of our experiences, and reason, and logic, and intuition, and observations as humans tells us that things don't just happen without a cause, then why must the universe be the only exemption from this Law?

Why would we make this great leap in faith and say: "everything that comes into existence has to have a cause except the universe"?

What warrants this assertion? Why must the universe be the only exemption to the Law? If material things like cars, houses, factories, planes, the earth, the sun, our galaxy, other galaxies all require and owe their existence to a cause greater than itself, then why would the universe, which is the sum of all of this, not also require a cause?

This exemption is unwarranted, but not only that, it is bad philosophy and bad science to maintain this. Because to maintain this position, one does so inspite of the evidence not because of the evidence.

Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow speaking as one who knows what is at stake for the scientist states:

"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

We see here that a scientist is saying that scientists have beliefs just like everyone else! And when their beliefs are threatened, they react sometimes as we have seen in Einstein's case, dishonestly.

Again he states:

"There is a kind of religion in science . . . every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause. . . . This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma,the mind reacts by ignoring the implications—in science this is known as "refusing to speculate"—or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 113-114)

And:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 116)

 

[Davian]

I would want to investigate to find out if it is reasonable for me to believe what you say. I would not just take your word for it, you may be lying.

Or mistaken. That may only be my keys in my pocket.

Is my statement true or false?

That is a good point which needs to be made. If Christianity can be shown to be false, then I, as a person who believes truth is important, would have no reason to adhere to it. I would rather be disposed to seeking the truth than following a religion for the sake of that religion. In like manner, if evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that God does exist, then an objective minded person in search of truth should follow the evidence where it leads. And be honest enough to admit that he was wrong, as I would have to be if I was wrong.

I'll will wait to see if you can get to the *possibility* for the existence of deities.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes. To put it shortly:
How can we possibly conclude that what is observed as true about the physical within time and space must also be true about something that´s allegedly non-physical, in the absence of time and space?
And how come that the argument as presented has no problem with exhaustively violating this - its own - very premise in the further process?

Or, in other words: Why is it that an argument that starts with the exclusion of extraordinary events (and pretends to transcend it from the physical world on some assumed beyond realm) ends with the very postulation of extraordinary processes in its keyposition?

You again misunderstand the purpose of this apologia. This is not about initially trying to appeal to some non-physical entity. It is about establishing evidence and following it where it leads.

The cosmological argument is concerned with taking the evidence we have, and looking at it and asking: What does this mean?

In other words:

We have a plethora of data from all intellectual disciplines and branches of science i.e. cosmological, astronomical, physical, forensic, biological, philosophical, and others.

Bringing all of this data together gives us a picture that the universe is not eternal but that it had a beginning. That it is old, very old, but not eternal.

The Law of causality cannot be ignored for it demands that the universe had a cause. This is self-evident and cannot be ignored justifiably.

In no way have we been able to prove that this cause is the God of Christianity! This is going to be defended later. I closed the apologia with scriptures speaking about God's creative power because this apologia was compiled by a Christian.

The purpose here is very simple. The apologia does not stand or fall on God, but on the first and second premises of the argument. This points us to an Uncaused Cause, but this is the conclusion of the matter, not the beginning. If the argument began with the premise: "An Uncaused Cause created the universe", then this would be circular, but the argument does not start that way.

 

[Davian]

If all of our experiences, and reason, and logic, and intuition, and observations as humans tells us that things don't just happen without a cause, then why must the universe be the only exemption from this Law?

Why would we make this great leap in faith and say: "everything that comes into existence has to have a cause except the universe"?

What warrants this assertion? Why must the universe be the only exemption to the Law? If material things like cars, houses, factories, planes, the earth, the sun, our galaxy, other galaxies all require and owe their existence to a cause greater than itself, then why would the universe, which is the sum of all of this, not also require a cause?

This exemption is unwarranted, but not only that, it is bad philosophy and bad science to maintain this. Because to maintain this position, one does so inspite of the evidence not because of the evidence.
<snip>

There are exceptions to the law. What warrants the assumption that the universe is included?

In his lectures on cause and chance in physics, Max Born (1949) stated three assumptions that dominated physics until the twentieth century:

1. "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect."
2. "Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect."
3. "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact."

Relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience. After analyzing them in terms of modern physics, Born concluded "chance has become the primary notion, mechanics an expression of its quantitative laws, and the overwhelming evidence of causality with all its attributes in the realm of ordinary experience is satisfactorily explained by the statistical laws of large numbers."

Processes and Causality

 

[Elioenai26]

How do you know the universe isn't just random, or that this is the only way a universe could exist?

The Teleological argument for God is one in which any idea of randomness in the universe is shown to be completely unfounded. It deals with anthropic principles and constants which are an overwhelming display of precision and fine tuning in the universe. This argument shall be presented later.

Why would a choice need to be made? To change a state of nothingness into something seems to imply time (no matter how short). I don't think timelessness works like that and you need to prove why it does.

An impersonal "force" whatever this might be, I do not know, is not capable of causing or creating anything. Creating or causing something to be implies a volitional act i.e. I "will" prepare and then cook this meal, or I "will" paint this Bob Ross inspired painting. This demands the existence of mind and reason which is implicative of a personal being. If you never chose to go into the kitchen, open the fridge, take out the vegetables and chicken, then the soup would never get made. These items do not just own their own accord come together in a pot and boil themselves and then jump onto a plate and fly over to where you are sitting at a table.

Nor would a beautiful painting of nature somehow come together by natural forces over a period of eons. I.e. wind doesnt blow a canvas up on an easel and at the same time cause paint cans of various colors to spill out on the ground and mix themselves up to the exact shades needed to paint shadows. Paint brushes do not somehow spontaneously generate an amoeba which eventually grows fingers which hold it and eventually legs on which to stand and the rest of a human body with eyes, brain, heart, lung, and the capacity to think and reason and have aesthetic judgments on what is pretty and what is ugly!

 

[quatona]

I do not understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the Law of Causality cannot be used when determining whether or not the universe has a cause? If this is what you are stating, then what causes you to come to this conclusion? The Law of Causality is undeniable and inescapable in any scientific observation or philosophical argument which intends to teach us about the world in which we live.

1. I am simply not taking your (or anyone´s) word for it that it is undeniable and inescapable.
I am asking for the reasoning that has lead to this premise.

2. I do see how it is - in the scientific realm - based on the observation that physical effects must have physical causes. I am, however, not seeing how you can simply take this premise from the context in which science postulates it and generalize from it on the "supernatural" realm that you are trying to establish as existing.
If you want to discuss within the scientific context, fine. This context is about the physical world as observed within this universe. E.g. the claim that someone thought an object into existence, this wouldn´t be a "cause" as defined in this context.

The whole scientific method is built upon this Law, for Francis Bacon, the father of modern science says: "True knowledge is knowledge by causes."(The New Organon 1620; reprint, Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1960), 121

Yes, it is. Yet, science is about the physical world and "causes", in the phyiscal world, are physical causes.

Skeptic David Hume admits: " I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause." (in J.Y.T. Greig, ed., The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols. New York: Garland, 1983), 1:187.

And because "skeptic David Hume" says this it is therefore undeniable and indispensible?

The Law of Causality is just as indespensible in research about the universe as it is in research conducted in the universe.

Well, science doesn´t deal with non-physical stuff. Therefore, when science uses the term "cause" it means "physical causes". You may regret this, but if you are appealing to science you have to be consistent.

Earlier you stated that:

"I have problems with this premise that is so often brought up as being self-evident. Concluding from the laws observed within the universe on the laws that apply to the universe itself is jumping to conclusions."

Now you state in the above that:

"If it is true that scientists postulate causality..."

It seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that you think that the Law of Causality is something that is not held as being self-evident by most scientists. To this I shall simply respond by saying that they would be out of a job if they maintained this view!

They would be out of job if they postulated a non-physical "cause" for a physical effect. That´s science.

You also maintain that the Uncaused Cause violates the Law of Causality, however this is clearly false. For the premise is:

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

To avoid redundant considerations, please let us not progress until my objections to this premise have been addressed. In this form it is not a scientific axiom.
If you want to address my objections I would kindly ask you to take my previous elaborations on the problems of the term "beginning" into consideration (in that the beginning of the universe/time/space/matter/physicality would be a singular, unobserved event, and therefore could impossibly be meant by a premise that is allegedly scientific and derived from observation).

 

[Elioenai26]

There are exceptions to the law. What warrants the assumption that the universe is included?

In his lectures on cause and chance in physics, Max Born (1949) stated three assumptions that dominated physics until the twentieth century:

1. "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect."
2. "Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect."
3. "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact."

Relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience. After analyzing them in terms of modern physics, Born concluded "chance has become the primary notion, mechanics an expression of its quantitative laws, and the overwhelming evidence of causality with all its attributes in the realm of ordinary experience is satisfactorily explained by the statistical laws of large numbers."

Processes and Causality

I saw this and decided that it was expedient for me to write on it before I retire for the day.

This idea is being used by some physicists to cast doubt on the veracity of the Law of Causality. But as it shall be shown, these attempts are completely unfounded, but not only that, they are intentionally misleading and border on pop-metaphysics.

Contemporary philosopher Quentin Smith actually used this as an argument against holding that the Law of Causality was applicable to the Big Bang model.

However the reason this argument fails is that the motions of elementary particles described by statistical quantum mechanical laws, even if uncaused, do not constitute an exception to this principle:

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

As Smith himself admits, these considerations "at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles" (p. 50).

Smith seeks rectify this defect in his argument, however, by pointing out that the Uncertainty relation also permits energy or particles (notably virtual particles) to "spontaneously come into existence" for a very brief time before vanishing again. It is therefore false that "all beginnings of existence are caused" and, hence, ". . . the crucial step in the argument to a supernatural cause of the Big Bang . . . is faulty" (pp. 50-51).

But as a counterexample to (1'), Smith's use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum.

As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440).

The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. It therefore seems that Smith has failed to refute premiss (1').

Therefore your assertion that "there is an exception to the Law of Causality" is completely unfounded and intentionally misleading.

The above is courtesy of www.reasonablefaith.org

​

 

[quatona]

You again misunderstand the purpose of this apologia. This is not about initially trying to appeal to some non-physical entity. It is about establishing evidence and following it where it leads.

The purpose is completely irrelevant, to me. The existence or non-existence of a God does not hinge on the validity of your argument. I am simply looking at the argument as presented, and I point out its flaws, contradictions and inconsistencies.
However, since you start from the physical and end up with postulating something non-physical, the problems with this extrapolation need to be pointed out.

The purpose here is very simple. The apologia does not stand or fall on God, but on the first and second premises of the argument.

It stands or falls on a lot of things, generally:
- the validity of the premise
- the validity of the logical deduction of the conclusion from the premises.
A lot of things can go wrong there, and a lot depends on clear definitions of the terms used. Your conclusion (and if the thread title and your general efforts here aren´t trying to be deliberately misleading, this conclusion is in fact the very purpose you are pursuing), of course needs to be taken into consideration when investigating the validity of the entire process.

This points us to an Uncaused Cause, but this is the conclusion of the matter, not the beginning. If the argument began with the premise: "An Uncaused Cause created the universe", then this would be circular, but the argument does not start that way.

Well, since my point of criticism was not circularity but - au contraire - inconsistency I am not sure where that defense of your comes from.

 

[Elioenai26]

I must sign off for the night lady and gentlemen and say good night to you all. I thank you for your participation and hope to hear from you all tomorrow!

 

[quatona]

Not that it really matters - but it always makes me chuckle that I went to a Jesuit school, and it was Jesuits that taught me how and where to spot the flaws in God proofs.
Gotta admit that most of these guys were - although a bit quirky in many respects - very smart and intellectually honest.

 

[Davian]

I saw this and decided that it was expedient for me to write on it before I retire for the day.

This idea is being used by some physicists to cast doubt on the veracity of the Law of Causality. But as it shall be shown, these attempts are completely unfounded, but not only that, they are intentionally misleading and border on pop-metaphysics.

Contemporary philosopher Quentin Smith actually used this as an argument against holding that the Law of Causality was applicable to the Big Bang model.

However the reason this argument fails is that the motions of elementary particles described by statistical quantum mechanical laws, even if uncaused, do not constitute an exception to this principle:

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

As Smith himself admits, these considerations "at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles" (p. 50).

Smith seeks rectify this defect in his argument, however, by pointing out that the Uncertainty relation also permits energy or particles (notably virtual particles) to "spontaneously come into existence" for a very brief time before vanishing again. It is therefore false that "all beginnings of existence are caused" and, hence, ". . . the crucial step in the argument to a supernatural cause of the Big Bang . . . is faulty" (pp. 50-51).

But as a counterexample to (1'), Smith's use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum.

As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440).

The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. It therefore seems that Smith has failed to refute premiss (1').

Therefore your assertion that "there is an exception to the Law of Causality" is completely unfounded and intentionally misleading.

This still presumes that the 'big bang' is an event, that is, something that takes place in space-time, where your cause-and-effect argument might apply.

The above is courtesy of www.reasonablefaith.org

​

Yes, this was the horse you rode in on. Still giving you trouble, it seems.

 

[Davian]

Not that it really matters - but it always makes me chuckle that I went to a Jesuit school, and it was Jesuits that taught me how and where to spot the flaws in God proofs.
Gotta admit that most of these guys were - although a bit quirky in many respects - very smart and intellectually honest.

Elioenai looks like he wants to find each one of those flaws, lol.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The Teleological argument for God is one in which any idea of randomness in the universe is shown to be completely unfounded. It deals with anthropic principles and constants which are an overwhelming display of precision and fine tuning in the universe. This argument shall be presented later.

Only idiots think that the Teleological argument actually accomplishes anything. It's one of the more easily shot down arguments.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I understand clearly what you are saying.


Let me see if I can unpack this clearly and concisely.

The universe is defined as the whole of material reality. According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, all space, all time, and all matter came into existence at a specific point many years ago. This has been corroborated by scientific observations and philosophical argumentation. References are listed in the apologia.

Now, we must ask, if this is true, which it has been shown to be beyond a reasonable doubt, the question remains: what type of entity had the ability to bring this state of affairs about?

Remebering here, that an effect (the universe) cannot be greater than it's cause. So logically, we follow with: what is greater than the universe?

Now, I of course have supplied just a few attributes that would be necessary of such an entity, but we need not automatically jump and say: "GOD DID IT"!!! This is not necessary. You can logically determine what attributes an entity must possess in order to create the universe by looking at the universe itself. Whatever this enitity is, it must be greater than the universe in all respects in order for it to be able to create the universe.

What I will do now is allow you to come up with some ideas of what such an entity might be and we will look at them and see if they could fit the criteria required.

Why must it be "greater than", and in what sense of "greater"?

This too is a good question.


We need not have complete understanding of something in order for us to know that it is a cause of something.


In forensic science, investigators who are trying to determine who is responsible for a murder, do not actually have to understand and know everyting there is to know about the crime scene, the victim, and the available evidence in order to determine who committed the crime.

Detectives use the Principle of Uniformity, which states that causes in the past were like the causes that we observe today.

A principle which your argument violates.

The Principle of Uniformity tells us that the world works in the past just like it works today, especially when it comes to causes. When we look at the past and specifically the evidence that the universe had a beginning, we simply investigate and observe how our world works today and we can make inductive observations and inferential judgments as to what would have been necessary to bring about the Big Bang.

In the same way, detectives can piece together clues and evidence left behind by the perpetrator to compose an accurate picture of what happened at the crime scene. They observe, compile, research, question, infer, and compile all of this evidence together and they follow the evidence wherever it leads.

In like manner, when we take the evidence of the beginning of the universe i.e all the scientific, philosophic, biological, forensic, etc. etc., and put them together and follow it to where it leads us, it is going to lead us to a truth that is knowable, and to a truth that is logically, reasonably, and rationally coherent.

Evidence for a beginning is evidence for a beginning, not evidence for an intelligent entity that brought into effect that beginning through its own will.

We take the evidence we have compiled in the natural world. We ask: Where does this evidence point to? It is the evidence that we follow not the Law of Causality.

The Law of Causality speaks intuitively to us in our capacity to reason and says: "The universe must have a cause, because it began to exist, so follow the evidence."

The Law of Causality is the impetus and guide of the evidence we have. It tells us to take the evidence and ask: "What could have been the cause of the universe according to what we know of it?"

We have plenty enough evidence to take and place before us and honestly say: "Where does it lead?"

If only one line of scientific argumentation were taken from the apologia, i.e Einstein's work, we could follow it to it's logical conclusion. But we have much more than one line.

This is one argument for the existence of God, there are several others and many would say they are even more convincing than this one!

You are taking a law that finds application to everything we see within the natural world and saying that it also finds application outside the natural world. There is no warrant for that inference.

And if the evidence leads, as we have been shown that it does, to an entity that is greater than the universe, then this must be accepted as the truth. And herein do many fail to continue on. For if they admit that the evidence points to a supernatural entity, then they understand that if they hold to a position that does not, then they are wrong, and unfortunately many are unwilling to accept this.

But you have not shown that the evidence leads to an entity that is greater than the universe, much less a supernatural entity. You have speculated that much, but your argument does not show that it must be the case. For one, you have claimed that this entity must be "greater than" the universe, but you have no specified in what way and in what attributes it is "greater than" its effect. Second, you haven't dealt with the problem of supernatural causes leading to natural effects. This is especially problematic for your argument because you are claiming that a supernatural cause led to a natural effect even though we only ever observe natural causes leading to natural effects. So you are in essence saying that the law of causality applies not only to natural causes and effects (which we observe), but to supernatural causes and effects (which we cannot and do not observe).

If all of our experiences, and reason, and logic, and intuition, and observations as humans tells us that things don't just happen without a cause, then why must the universe be the only exemption from this Law?

Why would we make this great leap in faith and say: "everything that comes into existence has to have a cause except the universe"?

I did not say that the universe must be an exception. I said that the universe need not require a supernatural cause and that your argument certainly fails to justify one. But it is indeed feasible that the universe as a whole is an exception. It is possible that causality itself came into existence the moment that the universe came into existence. This is paradoxical, because it would mean that it is impossible to even speak of a time "before" the universe began.

And as quatona noted earlier:

we get a very particular meaning of "beginning", since nowhere in this universe have we ever observed something "beginning" in the strict sense of the word. All we observe is permanent transformation of matter. So when we describe our observations as "the beginning of existence" we are actually using "beginning" in the meaning of "transformation".​

What warrants this assertion? Why must the universe be the only exemption to the Law? If material things like cars, houses, factories, planes, the earth, the sun, our galaxy, other galaxies all require and owe their existence to a cause greater than itself, then why would the universe, which is the sum of all of this, not also require a cause?

If you have a system, where each part has the property of being a triangle, should you infer that the system (which is the sum of all the triangles) must itself be a triangle?

All the material things that you mention, from houses to galaxies, owe their existence to material events. You want to argue that the universe as a whole has a non-material cause.

I also don't understand what you mean by "greater than". When the cue hits the billiard ball, causing it to move in a particular direction, is the cause somehow "greater than" its effect?

 

[quatona]

Just on another side-note:
If the "Law of Causality" ("everything that has a beginning has a cause") were indeed most basic, "inevitable, indispensible" scientific axioms, I would expect them to find scientific elaborations and discussions all over the place when I google it.
In fact, the first pages almost exclusively provide links to religious discussions.

However, on Wikipedia there is an article called "Axiom of Causality". Interestingly it starts with

"The Axiom of Causality is the proposition that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause." (emphasis added)

 

[Gadarene]

I saw this and decided that it was expedient for me to write on it before I retire for the day.

This idea is being used by some physicists to cast doubt on the veracity of the Law of Causality. But as it shall be shown, these attempts are completely unfounded, but not only that, they are intentionally misleading and border on pop-metaphysics.

Contemporary philosopher Quentin Smith actually used this as an argument against holding that the Law of Causality was applicable to the Big Bang model.

However the reason this argument fails is that the motions of elementary particles described by statistical quantum mechanical laws, even if uncaused, do not constitute an exception to this principle:

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

As Smith himself admits, these considerations "at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles" (p. 50).

Smith seeks rectify this defect in his argument, however, by pointing out that the Uncertainty relation also permits energy or particles (notably virtual particles) to "spontaneously come into existence" for a very brief time before vanishing again. It is therefore false that "all beginnings of existence are caused" and, hence, ". . . the crucial step in the argument to a supernatural cause of the Big Bang . . . is faulty" (pp. 50-51).

But as a counterexample to (1'), Smith's use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum.

As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440).

The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. It therefore seems that Smith has failed to refute premiss (1').

Therefore your assertion that "there is an exception to the Law of Causality" is completely unfounded and intentionally misleading.

The above is courtesy of www.reasonablefaith.org

​

The only thing misleading here is Craig's tired mischaracterisation of the big bang as something from nothing. Expansion of space time from a singularity possibly originating from quantum vacuum fluctuations is not something from nothing. At best, his tendency to quote mine people who he thinks back him up have resulted in him mistaking the lay description of a theory for its actual statement. Most people still think of the universe as literally all that is and a vacuum as nothing - neither are the case wrt the big bang theory.