Introduction: In the previous post of this series we concluded our discussion of truth. We learned that truth about reality is both knowable and the opposite of false. The third step in our progression to Christian Theism is: It is true that the theistic God exists. Because we can find out truth about reality, and God (if he exists) has made himself part of our reality in His creative acts, this leads us to the conclusion that we can know about God in some way if he exists. There are many arguments for the existence of God; the conclusions of which will lead us to a conception of God that fits the major monotheistic faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. For Christians, it will take more steps than this one to get to God incarnate, Jesus Christ. The first of these arguments that I will cover is the kalam cosmological argument.
The word kalam is an Arabic word signifying medieval Islamic scholasticism which is a school of philosophical thought that developed this argument. Cosmology is the study of the cosmos which has two sub-disciplines: cosmogony and eschatology. Yes, you read that right, science has a branch of study concerning the physical end of the universe. Cosmogony on the other hand, deals with the beginning of the universe and is what we will be talking about today. This argument intends to show that because the universe had a beginning, it needed a beginner. It uses both philosophical and scientific evidences to support its premises. The strength of the argument is in the philosophical portions and while the scientific evidence is also strong, science is a shifting patch of sand that can leave you with nothing to stand on. However, we are going to discuss two more cosmological arguments that do not rely on science at all, but rest purely on philosophical grounds to get to God's existence because of the universes' existence. On to the syllogism!
Premise 1
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Support for premise 1: Intuitively, this seems like it is true. Something cannot come into being from nothing and our experience demonstrates this fact constantly. Believing that something can come from nothing is akin to actually believing the magician you saw as a kid really pulled a rabbit out of a hat.
Objection 1 to premise 1: Nothing created the universe, it's physics. Particularly it is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics that suggests that subatomic particles are uncaused. This is then extrapolated to the energy filled subatomic vacuum which has spontaneous fluctuations, of which uncaused particles, and it is suggested, the universe, can come into being out of nothing. The most prominent proponents of this view are Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking. Krauss is a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University. He has written a book entitled "A Universe From Nothing" and says; "If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you will always have something." (1) Hawking, who I presume needs no introduction, has said in his book "The Grand Design"; "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will
create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is
something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set
the universe going." (2)
Answer to objection 1 to premise 1: First, the subatomic or primordial vacuum is simply not nothing. It is a roiling cauldron of energy that has structure and is subject to physical laws. This is hardly nothing and merely backs the problem up a step since it is made of the same material that the universe is made of; what caused the subatomic vacuum? Second, it is incoherent to say that laws cause things. Do speed limits cause people to speed? No. The question you should be asking now is; are laws like gravity working when nothing exists? The answer is no, because nothing exists. There are no laws of physics for nonbeing. Laws cannot cause anything to pop into being. Third, nothing cannot cause itself. It is nothing, i.e. no thing. Nothing is not something, it is the absence of anything and everything.
Objection 2 to premise 1: Some critics will propose that everything in the universe must adhere to premise 1, but this does not apply to the universe.
Answer to objection 2 to premise 1: The answer to this objection is that premise 1 is not merely a physical principle like the law of gravity, which cannot cause things in the universe to come into being. It is a metaphysical principle with a long history of thought in the philosophical world. Being cannot produce nonbeing; something cannot come into existence uncaused from nothing. On this principle, the skeptic is stuck with no universe because there is not even any potentiality for the universe to exist since nothing has no potential and there was nothing before the big bang.
Objection 3 to premise 1: A final objection to premise 1 deals with theories of time. The B-theory of time suggests that moments of time are tenseless and exist equally. The "Back to the Future" movies would be a good way to think of this theory. Marty McFly goes back to 1955 in the first movie and the citizens of Hill Valley are going about their business: running into manure trucks and preparing for the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance. Eventually, he makes it back to 1985 and things are continuing on as if nothing happened. This seems to presuppose a B-theory of time in which every moment of time is equally real. On this view, it would be nonsensical to say that anything begins to exist. If every moment of time is equally real all the time, nothing comes into being, it just is. William Lane Craig says: "On a static or so-called B-theory of time (according to which all moments of time are equally existent) the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the big bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction." (3) If nothing comes into being because it just exists, there is no need for a cause.
Answer to objection 3 to premise 1: The A-theory of time suggests that temporal becoming is real. There are actually moments of time that are tensed one at a time. So, right now as I write, it is 10:09:09. That moment of time was real at that very second and now it is gone, no getting it back. Sorry Doc Brown, your invention will never work. This seems to be the common sense view of time. Another way to think about this theory is that the past and future are not real anymore or yet, respectively. Only the moment that is presently tensed is real. Time travel is impossible on this view and can be used to show a problem with the B-theory.
1. If you could travel back in time, then you could kill your grandfather before you father was ever conceived. (For what's to stop you from bringing a gun with you and simply shooting him?)
2. It's not the case that you could kill your grandfather before your father was ever conceived. (Because if you did, then you would ensure you never existed, and that is not something you could ensure.)
3. You cannot travel back in time.
I think another major problem for the B-theory arises if you are a Christian. It comes in the form of a question: is Christ hanging on the cross eternally tenselessly?
Premise 2
2. The universe began to exist.
Four arguments will be offered. Two philosophical and two scientific (4).
Support 1 for premise 2: It is impossible for an actual infinite to exist.
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. An infinite temporal regress of physical events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of physical events cannot exist.
If the universe is eternal, there are an infinite number of physical events that occurred before today. That is impossible. In rough terms an infinite is a set greater than any natural number. If you think you can have a set of anything that is infinite, you're wrong; you can always have one more, a million more, an infinity more because infinity is a set larger than any natural number. A thought exercise called Hilbert's Hotel can demonstrate this more clearly. If I attempt to check into a normal hotel that is full, I will not get a room. Hilbert's Hotel is different though. It has an infinite number of rooms and they are all full. If I attempt to check into Hilbert's Hotel, I can get a room, even though they are all full. The proprietors would move the person in room one to room two, room two to room three, and so on. I would then occupy room 1. There would now be no more people in the hotel than there was before, i.e. infinity.
Another scenario could arise due to housekeeping. In order to clean the rooms, the owners moved guests into the room double their own room number, it would go like this: room 1 to room 2, room 2 to room 4, room 3 to room 6, and so on. Since every number doubled is an even number, we now have a hotel with an infinite number of people in an infinite number of even rooms while we also have an infinite number of empty odd-numbered rooms. That can't be. We cannot have a hotel that is infinitely full and infinitely empty. We could go on, but I think it is evident that an actual infinite can't exist and thus, the universe had to have a beginning.
Objection 1 to support 1 in premise 2: We just don't know enough about infinites to make these assertions.
Answer to objection 1 to support 1 in premise 2:
Cantorian mathematics deals with infinites and has developed an entire
dialogue structure for infinites. Because of these methods, we know
quite a bit about infinite mathematics. We are making these inferences
based on what we know about infinity, not about what we don't know.
Objection 2 to support 1 in premise 2: Every
finite distance is capable of being divided into an infinite number of
parts. A ruler can be halved to 6 inches, then 3 inches, then 1.5 inches
and so on.
Answer to objection 2 to support 1 in premise 2: This confuses a potential infinite with an actual infinite. The ruler could be divided infinitely, that is possible. But it could not actually be divided infinitely. By definition, you would never cease to divide the ruler.
Support 2 for premise 2: The second argument is that it is impossible to form an actual infinite by successive addition.
1. The temporal series of physical events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of physical events cannot be an actual infinite.
This argument does not assume that an actual infinite cannot exist. Essentially it argues that you cannot traverse an infinite. If the universe is eternal, it has an infinite set of physical events, i.e. days. Before we got to this day, we had to traverse yesterday. Before yesterday, we had to traverse the day before yesterday and so on. So, how did we get to today? No day could ever really arrive, since before it could, one more day would always have to elapse.
Objection 1 to support 2 in premise 2: Zeno's paradoxes of
motion. Before Achilles could cross the stadium, he would have to cross
halfway; before halfway, a quarter of the way, and so on. Achilles can't
move and motion isn't possible.
Answer to objection 1 to support 2 in premise 2: Zeno's
units are potential and unequal while an infinite past's units would be
actual and equal. We have already seen in the previous objection the
difference between potential and actual infinity. Zeno's units, being
unequal, add up to a finite distance whereas the universe's days would add up
to an infinite time period, which is impossible because you could always add one more day.
Objection 2 to support 2 in premise 2: You are assuming an infinitely distant starting point and we can pick a point finitely distant from today and traverse it.
Answer to objection 2 to support 2 in premise 2: No one is arguing for an infinitely distant starting point. They are saying that if the universe is eternal, there is no starting point. The second portion of this is just nonsense. The inference is supposed to be that if we can traverse this finite portion, then we can just add up these finite portions to get the infinite. Like the dividing the ruler example, we would never stop adding by definition. This argument is seriously fallacious.
Support 3 for premise 2: Now we turn to the science. Argument three is about the expansion of the universe. Einstein's general theory of relativity (GTR) showed theoretically that the universe's space-time complex was expanding. What this means is that if correct, the universe began as an impossibly small singularity that has been expanding ever since. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered the red-shift of light from distant galaxies. This red-shift indicates the recession of light in every direction in space and was the first piece of confirmational evidence for Einstein's GTR and an expanding universe. About a decade earlier, two scientists, Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre predicted this expanding universe. But, this does not mean space is expanding into emptiness. It means that space itself is expanding while the planets, etc. are at rest. Their model came to be known as the standard or big bang model. In it, all space-time, matter and energy came into being ex nihilo or out of nothing. Another piece of confirmational evidence for the big bang model came in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. It is the cosmic microwave background radiation which are tiny temperature fluctuations in the universe that indicate leftover radiation from the expansion of the universe. These fluctuations fit mathematically with the Friedman/Lemaitre standard model.
Objection to support 3 for premise 2: Really, this is many objections in one. They are different models of the universe that try to avoid a beginning which I have linked to descriptions for you to read. Oscillating (expands and recontracts forever), chaotic inflationary (spawns new universes infinitely into the future), vacuum fluctuation (eternal vacuum that produced universe), quantum gravity (gravity at the subatomic level caused the universe), cyclic ekpyrotic (similar to oscillating).
Answer to objection to support 3 for premise 2:
Oscillating: finite past
Chaotic inflationary: finite past
Vacuum fluctuation: cannot explain why universe is not infinitely old in observation
Quantum gravity: proposes a boundary, not a singularity, but still has an origin
Cyclic ekpyrotic: finite past
Support 4 for premise 2: The fourth and final argument deals with the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that energy in a closed system will always tend toward a state of equilibrium. William Lane Craig explains:
"On the other hand if, as is more likely, the universe will expand forever, then its death will be cold, as the galaxies turn their gas into stars, and the stars burn out. At 10^30 years the universe will consist of 90% dead stars, 9% supermassive black holes formed by the collapse of galaxies, and 1% atomic matter, mainly hydrogen. Elementary particle physics suggest that thereafter protons will decay into electrons and positrons so that space will be filled with a rarefied gas so thin that the distance between an electron and positron will be about the size of the present galaxy. Eventually all black holes will completely evaporate and all the matter in the ever-expanding universe will be reduced to a thin gas of elementary particles and radiation. Equilibrium will prevail throughout, and the entire universe will be in its final state, from which no change will occur." (5)
A heat death is also possible if the universe is bound to recontract, but there is no evidence that it is going to recontract. This all indicates that if the universe is eternal, why hasn't heat death occurred? Why hasn't the universe expanded over this infinite period of time until energy is at equilibrium and the above cold death scenario has happened? If it is eternal, there is no reason why either of those scenarios haven't happened. But they haven't, so it seems that the universe had a beginning.
Objection to support 4 for premise 2: The oscillating model of the universe allows expansions to happen due to energy exchange during the recontraction phases.
Answer to objection to support 4 for premise 2: Thermodynamics still imply a beginning to the universe on this model. On this model, entropy increases from cycle to cycle and in turn, the oscillations get bigger and bigger. If you extrapolate backwards, you would get smaller and smaller oscillations until you reach a first oscillation.
Conclusion
Now that we have supported both of the premises in the argument, it follows logically:
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
What kind of cause do we end up with? The cause must be transcendent, that is beyond space and time. Timelessness implies changelessness. Changelessness implies immateriality. It also must be beginningless and uncaused or else it would fall prey to the first premise of our argument. It must also be very powerful to have created the universe out of nothing and it must be personal. A list is in order:
Atemporal: time had a beginning, so the cause is outside of time
Nonspatial: space had a beginning, so the cause is not made of space
Changeless: implied by timelessness
Immateriality: implied by changelessness because material changes
Beginningless: always has existed
Uncaused: stops the infinite regress of causes that would arise if caused
Powerful: created the universe
The last attribute of this cause is personal for three reasons. The first is that scientific explanations cannot account for the universe since there was nothing before the universe. We have discussed this concept above. Second, timelessness and immateriality entities could be either minds or abstract objects, and the latter do not stand in causal relations with any objects. An example would be the number 144, not the digits I just typed, but the actual concept of the number 144. 144 cannot cause anything. The third reason the cause of the universe is personal is because if it is impersonal, its effect would necessarily exist with its cause. The impersonal entity wouldn't be able to stop its effect, it would just happen. Think of freezing temperatures and water. If the temperature is at the freezing point, the water will freeze. The temperature can't just say, "Nope, I'm not gonna freeze that water right now." In like manner, an impersonal cause of the universe would timelessly cause its effect. A personal free agent however, would be able to produce a temporal effect (the universe) from a timeless cause (God). If you know your Bible, that sounds an awful lot like YHWH! (Exodus 3:14; John 4:24). In the next post, we will discuss the second cosmological argument; Liebniz's contingency cosmological argument.
Notes:
1. Lawrence M. Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing." AAI lecture, 2009.
2. Stephen Hawking, "The Grand Design."
3. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview." pg. 469.
4. ibid, pg. 470-6.
5. ibid, pg. 478.
No comments:
Post a Comment