The cosmological argument

[Nooj]

This is the Kalam Cosmological argument:

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

First of all, if the conclusion is true and the existence of the universe has a cause, it does not follow that the cause is God.

I don't accept the second premise, because the evidence doesn't support it.

And I'm not sure if the first premise is true.

It seems like a fairly limp argument to me. Am I missing something here?

 

[Chesterton]

The evidence doesn't support the second premise?

 

[Nooj]

The evidence doesn't support the second premise?

No, it doesn't.

 

[Chesterton]

What evidence are we talking about, and what type of cosmology does it support? Virtually all scientists in the relevant fields say the evidence indicates the universe had a beginning.

 

[Nooj]

What evidence are we talking about, and what type of cosmology does it support? Virtually all scientists in the relevant fields say the evidence indicates the universe had a beginning.

Not really.

The Universe had an early period during which the Universe very rapidly expanded from its state as a singularity. This expansion is known as the Big Bang. But scientists don't know what came before that singularity, if such a question is meaningful at all.

It's still up in the air whether the Universe had a beginning.

 

[Chesterton]

Not really.

The Universe had an early period during which the Universe very rapidly expanded from its state as a singularity. This expansion is known as the Big Bang. But scientists don't know what came before that singularity, if such a question is meaningful at all.

It's still up in the air whether the Universe had a beginning.

But that expansion from singularity was the beginning of this universe. If you want to go beyond that you'll have to resort to religion or science fiction. The second premise is founded scientifically.

 

[Nooj]

But that expansion from singularity was the beginning of this universe.

By beginning, I mean:

The universe began to exist

The expansion may have been the 'beginning' of the Universe in the sense of an early, formative period but it's not known whether the Universe began to exist, which is another sense of the word 'beginning' and the one relevant to the Kalam cosmological argument.

The second premise is founded scientifically.

No, it isn't. Science is silent on the second premise for now.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The evidence doesn't support the second premise?

Considering that it may be meaningless to speak of time outside of spacetime, then it would be equally meaningless to speak of the universe "starting to exist". At most, it would "start to change".

But I see a flaw in premise 1 as well. Causes are understood in terms of change, not in terms of "coming to exist". There is no causal theory of existence ex nihilo.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dark_Lite]

Not really.

The Universe had an early period during which the Universe very rapidly expanded from its state as a singularity. This expansion is known as the Big Bang. But scientists don't know what came before that singularity, if such a question is meaningful at all.

It's still up in the air whether the Universe had a beginning.

Up in the air, perhaps. But the most obvious logical explanation that generally gets tacked on is that the Big Bang was "the beginning." And indeed it is "the beginning," as far as we know currently, of the universe as we know it. As for the beginning of existence, it is true that there are disputes about that: things like oscillatory universe, etc.

But the Big Bang is responsible for time, space, and the laws of nature as we know it. Before the Big Bang, anything could have been. The existence of the universe as it is known today is a direct result of the Big Bang, however. So, we can say the existence of our universe started with the Big Bang. Before that, what constitutes "the universe?" Is another universe shrinking into a singularity part of "our universe?" Or is it something else entirely? The realm before the Big Bang gets very vague about what constitutes "the universe."

I do find it interesting though that the only alternative to an ex nihilo start of the universe is an eternal universe... Or is there another alternative I'm not aware of?

 

[Nooj]

So, we can say the existence of our universe started with the Big Bang.

I'd rather say that the current state of our universe is attributable to the Big Bang.

Before that, what constitutes "the universe?" Is another universe shrinking into a singularity part of "our universe?" Or is it something else entirely? The realm before the Big Bang gets very vague about what constitutes "the universe."

I'd say the Universe before its Big Bang period was that which existed.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I'd rather say that the current state of our universe is attributable to the Big Bang.

Makes sense.

I'd say the Universe before its Big Bang period was that which existed.

That's still very vague though. "The universe" in that case could be anything from God to nothing to Cigarette-Smoking Genie. (Don't know if you've been following another thread in Physical Sciences or not to get that reference )

 

[Chesterton]

I'd say the Universe before its Big Bang period was that which existed.

That's a religous idea with no basis in science. Science can't address what it can't observe. And I agree with you: "that which existed" is God.

 

[Nooj]

That's still very vague though. "The universe" in that case could be anything from God to nothing to Cigarette-Smoking Genie.

In any case, I think the second premise is presuming too much.

(Don't know if you've been following another thread in Physical Sciences or not to get that reference )

Nope, I've been neglecting the Physical Sciences forum ever since I got tired of the evolution vs creationism debates.

That's a religous idea with no basis in science. Science can't address what it can't observe. And I agree with you: "that which existed" is God.

*raises eyebrow*

I didn't say 'that which existed' was God. I said that the Universe was that which existed before the expansionary period, which was an almost (?) infinitely dense, hot singularity.

 

[Dark_Lite]

In any case, I think the second premise is presuming too much.

But would you say the previous Universe (whatever it was) is the cause of the current universe?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's still very vague though. "The universe" in that case could be anything from God to nothing to Cigarette-Smoking Genie. (Don't know if you've been following another thread in Physical Sciences or not to get that reference )

Damn, that genie's following me everywhere...

That's a religous idea with no basis in science. Science can't address what it can't observe. And I agree with you: "that which existed" is God.

That as may be, but that doesn't tell us anything about 'God': whether it's the personal, concious, intelligent, prayer-answering deity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; whether it's a quantum singularity with no conciousness, intent, or will; or even whether it actually exists.

It's tantamount to a religious idea, but I don't think it's religious in and of itself. It's definitely unscientific, though.

 

[Nooj]

But would you say the previous Universe (whatever it was) is the cause of the current universe?

Believe me when I say I have no idea, but I'd love to find out. I'm agnostic about the issue of the ultimate origin of the Universe.

Another cosmological argument that has been adapted from Aquinas' argument from contingency. I might post that up later as well.

1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of its existence.
3. The cause of its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

A couple of definitions, as Aquinas understood it:

Contingent = a thing that has within itself the potential of generation and corruption. In other words, it enters the world by generation and leaves by destruction. Like a human or a dog.
Necessary = something that doesn't. Aquinas thinks there are many necessary beings, like God, angels and the human soul. Either made up of material that can't break down, or they're immaterial.

The argument from contigency doesn't necessitate a beginning to the Universe. The Universe could be eternal, and still be caused by something...its eternal existence is owed to an eternal being. That's why theists will say that if you take away God, the Universe goes with him. Aquinas in fact didn't think it was demonstrable that the Universe had a beginning, probably influenced by his BFF Aristotle who believed in an eternal universe. Aquinas thought that creation ex nihilo was an article of faith that the Church and the Bible taught, so one should believe it, end of question.

Here are my thoughts:

1) When theists use this argument of contingency as a cosmological argument, they assume the Universe is a contingent thing. But what if the Universe is a necessary being? Then the argument in its current form is useless for theistic purposes.
2) Premise 5 is interesting. What about an infinite chain of contingent beings one after the other?

The argument doesn't address the issue of where the necessary being/beings come from, and that's where Aquinas' comes in. Right after giving the argument from contingency and establishing at least one necessary being, he writes:

Therefore, not every being is something that can not‐exist, but there needs to be something necessary in reality.

But everything necessary either has or does not have the ground of its necessity from another source. There cannot, however, be an endless regress in the case of necessary things that have the ground of their necessity in another source, just as there cannot be an endless regress in the case of efficient causes, as I have shown. We need, therefore, to posit something that is intrinsically necessary, that does not have the ground of its necessity from another source, but which causes other things to be necessary, and all call this intrinsically necessary being God.

Well first of all, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that an infinite regress is false. But lets say it is. He states that there's an intrinsically necessary being. It seems rather ad hoc to me, but lets say there is. Couldn't we say that this intrinsically necessary 'being' or thing is the Universe?

 

[Jig]

The Laws of Thermodynamics have been described comprehensively in the last 125 years and is the strongest evidence for a finite universe.

First Law: Energy cannot be create nor destroyed by natural circumstances.

Second Law: In effect states that as time moves on energy systems (like the universe) progress from a state of order to a greater state of disorder AND that the energy available to perform work decreases with the advance of time. This is called entropy.

When applied to the universe this law predicts that the orderliness of the universe is steadily decreasig and is cooling off.

When the universe reaches this point of maximum disorder (entropy) and no energy is left to perform any work, the universe would be in a state of heat death. This process is structured within a finite amount of time.

If the universe had no beginning, then an infinite amount of time would have passed before this very moment. Meaning the universe would have infinitely already been in heat death. Since we know for a fact that the universe still has useable energy, then we can know for a fact the universe had a beginning.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The Laws of Thermodynamicshave been described comprehensively in the last 125 years and is the strongest evidence for a finite universe.

First Law: Energy cannot be create nor destroyed by natural circumstances.

It says that the internal energy of a closed system is constant. It makes no distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' circumstances.

Second Law: In effect states that as time moves on energy systems (like the universe) progresses from a state of order to a greater state of disorder AND that the energy available to perform work decreases with the advance of time. This is called entropy.

It states the entropy of a closed system will tend to a maximum. It says nothing about order and disorder (e.g., a disordered medium of liquid water will freeze and become the ordered medium of crystal ice, all the while increasing its entropy as it reaches thermal equilibrium with its rather cold surroundings).

The 'closed' part is rather important.

When applied to the universe this law predicts that the orderliness of the universe is steadily decreasig and is cooling off.

When the universe reaches this point of maximum disorder (entropy) and no energy is left to perform any work, the universe would be in a state of heat death. This process is structured within a finite amount of time.

It predicts the 'orderliness' of a closed universe of constant internal energy will actually increase. At the heat death, it will be perfectly ordered.

If the universe had no beginning, then an infinite amount of time would have passed before this very moment. Meaning the universe would have been infinitely already been in heat death. Since we know for a fact that the universe still has useable energy, then we can know for a fact the universe had a beginning.

Only if:
1) The First Law of Thermodynamics is true. It is not known whether it's a universally true hard-and-fast rule, or just a good approximation at our scales.
2) The universe is closed. Any energy exchange with our universe and some external resevoir (or suchlike) would negate the argument entirely.
3) The Second Law is a mathematical result of a very general mathematical model, which is why we know it is true. However, the universe may be so peculiar that it doesn't quite fit with the mathematical model: as general as the model is, the universe is just too queer for even that to approximate it to the required accuracy.

I also have objections to your use of infinity, but the above three are my major sticking points.

 

[Jig]

Only if:
1) The First Law of Thermodynamics is true. It is not known whether it's a universally true hard-and-fast rule, or just a good approximation at our scales.
2) The universe is closed. Any energy exchange with our universe and some external resevoir (or suchlike) would negate the argument entirely.
3) The Second Law is a mathematical result of a very general mathematical model, which is why we know it is true. However, the universe may be so peculiar that it doesn't quite fit with the mathematical model: as general as the model is, the universe is just too queer for even that to approximate it to the required accuracy.

I also have objections to your use of infinity, but the above three are my major sticking points.

Thanks for the reply.

My response to your second objection:

If the universe is infinitely vast then it would be a closed system because nothing could possibly be adding energy from the outside. There would be no outside.

But then to suggest that it is finite would mean it could not be eternal and thus necessitates a beginning.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thanks for the reply.

My response to your second objection:

If the universe is infinitely vast then it would be a closed system because nothing could possibly be adding energy from the outside. There would be no outside.

That depends on the topology of spacetime. The universe could be infinite and closed, but still have an 'outside': think of a bubble. Or think of an infinitely large plane in 3D space.

Just because the universe is infinitely large in three dimensions, doesn't mean there isn't something in the fourth. Moreover, being infinitely large does not necessarily mean it's closed: there could still be a non-zero energy flux.

But then to suggest that it is finite would mean it could not be eternal and thus necessitates a beginning.

Why couldn't it be eternal if it was finite? Eternal means it had no beginning (or no end, or both).