Much has been said recently about Andy Stanley's sermon series "Who Needs God?", particularly his comments about the Bible in the third installment; "The Bible Tells Me So". His statements about the foundation of faith in Jesus Christ are very confused and take a classical apologetic approach much to far. Classical apologetics will take a presupposition like the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible and, for the sake of argument, lay that aside. But, Andy Stanley seems to be encouraging the jettisoning of that view in everything but name only. There has been some very good analysis of the problems with his position already. I won't comment on them anymore. See the links below, including one that supports Pastor Stanley.
http://michaeljkruger.com/is-the-bible-foundational-to-christianity-engaging-with-andy-stanley/
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/is-christianity-bookish-faith.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-big-bad-wolf.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/inerrancy-and-general-historical.html
http://crossexamined.org/andy-stanley-right-foundation-christianity-defend/ (defends Andy Stanley)
What I would like to address are his comments in the second part; "Gods of the No Testament". The part I will discuss below starts at about 25 minutes in on the message only version.
http://northpointonline.tv/messages/who-needs-god/gods-of-the-no-testament
In the sermon, Andy rightly attacks people's misconceived notions about who God is. The aptly named "somebody-told-me-so god". In other words, someone along the line told a Christian this is who God is, but in reality that's not correct, such as; "bodyguard god". This god stops at nothing to protect you and supply all your needs according to your whim at the moment. Andy gives other examples of gods that are not real and does a fair job of deconstructing them. Where he falls apart, however, is in "anti-science god". His overarching message is that the details of creation do not constitute the foundation of our faith and we shouldn't abandon God over them. For instance, and this is my example, not his; a hyper-literal reading of the Bible would suggest that the Earth is flat. When someone finds out, after being told that the Earth is flat, that we have scientific and photographic evidence that the Earth is round, they shouldn't abandon God. They should rethink their interpretation of scripture by paying attention to poetic or metaphoric language based on the literary genre of the passage they are reading. So, here, I think Pastor Stanley is correct. However, he quickly ventures into dangerous territory.
His opening remarks about "anti-science god" pit "undeniable science vs. unreliable religion". He also says: "When religion and science conflict, at the end of the day, if you are an honest person, science must win. But the message that we get sometimes, the message you grew up with, and perhaps the reason you just walked away from God, is you grew up with a message that said; "Quit thinking and start believing!". This is very confused. Of course, if you were told to quit thinking, then that is wrong. But, does that mean that you just believe science in every instance where it supposedly conflicts with the Bible? Hardly. I'm not suggesting we ignore the advances of science, but Andy is talking about science as if it is an authoritative and infallible body of knowledge that should never be challenged. Really!? If scientific knowledge is monolithic and infallible, why are there so many competing theories on various topics? Let's take cosmology for instance. Which theory of the universes' origin is undeniable? The standard model, oscillating model, chaotic inflationary model, vacuum fluctuation model, quantum gravity model, or the cyclic ekpyrotic model? The standard model is the generally accepted model of universe origins due to its broad defensibility based on observable evidence, although opinion is somewhat splintered. Guess what? This model fits with a plain reading of Genesis 1 on either a young earth or an old earth view.
Andy continues by saying that "God or science is a false alternative". Three cheers for him! I totally agree. But then he puts his foot in his mouth with a terrible example. Christians are hypocrites for using medicinal science to heal our kids and ignoring science in other areas. We take them to the doctor while we pray in the background. This is some major equivocation concerning "science". Medicinal science is not the same as say, theoretical astrophysics. First of all, the use of antibiotics for instance, does not conflict with anything in the Bible. Praying and taking your kid to the doctor is perfectly OK. There is no command in scripture that says we should only pray to God when someone gets sick. This also ignores the fact that ultimately, God's sovereignty and providence rule that situation anyway, no matter what the doctors do. Secondly, as I said before, Andy is equivocating on the term science. He is putting all things considered science into one big lump and clearly they are not the same. He is using an obviously wrongheaded example, the use of doctors and medicine for sick kids, to say that we, as Christians, should accept all science, even when it conflicts with the Bible. That is a false transference that doesn't logically follow.
Just to make sure we're not confused, Andy says: "The moment your theology conflicts with the discoveries of science, you have a theological problem, not a science problem." And a little later: "We're hypocrites. If we lean into science for our health, why would we reject science in any other capacity?" It is no wonder why Andy views the Bible the way he does. He has an "undeniable" body of science that informs his worldview, including how he reads and interprets the Bible. In my understanding of what his sermon means: he isn't suggesting that we see where our reading of scripture might be wrong in light of science (or vice versa) and then see how we can attempt to make them compatible, like the flat Earth example above (if compatibility, broadly speaking, is possible and I'm not saying that it is in all cases); he is suggesting that we always believe in the science and simply abandon scripture that doesn't fit or reinterpret it to make it fit. This is a very misinformed and confused view of the interplay of science and religion. Look here for a short, but informative article about this topic. As believers in Jesus, I think we are called to read two books. The Bible and the book of nature or what theologians have traditionally called natural revelation. We should always be asking the question: are we, as fallen humanity, reading both correctly?
Andy also seems to be missing the fact that the preaching of the Gospel, combined with the drawing of the Father to Christ and the conviction of the Holy Spirit on an unbeliever, are how God has ordained salvation to be effected. As I have taught in my classes at church, apologetic methods are a secondary tool to the Gospel. In the end, I think Andy Stanley wants to knock down as many barriers as possible to faith in Jesus Christ. I think he is muddying the waters by taking his apologetic method too far. These are noble intentions, but noble intentions don't always produce noble results.
Showing posts with label cosmology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cosmology. Show all posts
Monday, September 26, 2016
Monday, August 8, 2016
Don't be a Perdurantist
Many people take issue, for various reasons, with the claim that the universe had a beginning. Some people believe that the science doesn't support that assertion. Others, I would argue most, who try to find some way around the universe's beginning are trying to avoid there being a personal cause of the universe because that points to the existence of God. William Lane Craig has been the foremost defender and expositor of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which uses the beginning of the universe as a premise in a philosophical argument for God's existence, and I have written an extensive post about that argument here if you are unfamiliar with it.
One of the main contentions of opponents of this argument is that of the B-theory of time, also called the static conception 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. The implication of this is that the universe doesn't really begin to exist, because the "Big Bang" is always ongoing. If we could travel through time with Doc Brown, we could see the "Big Bang" as it is happening.
The point of this post is not to wrangle with those who argue about the beginning of the universe and thus God's existence, but to present a serious problem to believers who hold to the B-theory of time. Does this mean that I think those Christians who hold to a B-theory cannot believe in God and thus, are not Christians? NO! That is not what I mean. My intention is to convince Christians that hold this view that it is very problematic for one very troubling reason: perdurantism.
In order to understand what perdurantism is, we have to look at what is known as the problem of intrinsic change that the B-theorist encounters. The problem of intrinsic change "is how something can remain self-identical if it has different properties at different times" (1). This basically means how can a person, F. F. Bruce for instance, be F. F. Bruce moment to moment if every moment produces a change in him. A change means an object is taking on or jettisoning properties. B-theorists have posited that people are just 4-dimensional objects (the 4th dimension is time) that appear to us as 3-dimensional objects. So, B-theorists answer that indeed, F. F. Bruce is not the same moment to moment, but simply a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", which philosophers call "hyper-objects" that are extended in both time and space. Since the person we see as F. F. Bruce is but a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", it follows that the F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago is a different part and thus, not identical to the present (to us) F. F. Bruce. In a nutshell, people are not the same self-identifying beings from moment to moment. Philosophers of time who hold this view merely say that objects perdure. So perdurantism is the view that ordinary things like animals, boats and planets have temporal parts (things persist by ‘perduring’) (2). The following is my summary of 3 reasons why perdurantism is false from William Lane Craig (3) followed by some other comments of my own.
1. Perdurantism's account of intrinsic change is implausible.
Since, on perdurantism, an object is a composition of spatio-temporal parts that make up a "hyper-object" in 4 dimensions, none of these parts are identical. But, if none of the parts are identical as the perdurantist admits, then nothing, including the parts or the "hyper-object" actually undergoes any intrinsic change. It is not correct to say that F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago gained wisdom and now has the property of being wise in our time because "present F. F. Bruce" and "F. F. Bruce from twenty years ago" are entirely different 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the hyper-object "F. F. Bruce". The parts merely have different properties that they neither gain nor lose. Thus, there is no intrinsic change going on, it is an illusion of philosophical theory.
2. Perdurantism flies in the face of the phenomenology of personal consciousness.
We know ourselves to be persons. This concept is known as self-consciousness. Perdurantists view people as spatio-temporal parts of hyper-objects with no self-consciousness. This means that these parts are not actually persons, just parts that do not have any of the properties normally associated with personhood. No intellect, emotions, will, moral responsibility, etc. Some perdurantists say that the 3-dimensional objects really are persons and the corresponding 4-dimensional object is a hyper-person, but this doesn't work either. This would mean that the hyper-person is comprised of a number of individual persons having, for instance, their own memories that are not shared by each individual part. So, it isn't really you having that memory of your wedding, it is a distinct, non-identical 3-dimensional part of the 4-dimensional "hyper-you-person". This seems absurd on many levels. Does anyone really think that they are not the same person second to second and that they are recalling someone else's wedding memory while walking down memory lane?
3. Perdurantism is incompatible with moral responsibility, praise, and blame.
Even if we grant that the 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the 4-dimensional hyper-person are persons as well, there is a problem. Since they are all distinct persons, how can a criminal spend his life in jail considering that even 5 minutes later he is not the same person? He can't be held accountable for the crime of "5 minutes ago criminal". If we back up to the initial perdurantist view that these parts are just that, parts not persons, this is even more absurd than our criminal above. How can a part of a 4-dimensional hyper-object be held responsible for good or bad actions? The answer is they cannot.
The balance of probability lies in favor of saying that perdurantism is false. Now, the B-theorist may try to use the opposite theory concerning the problem of intrinsic change. That of endurantism, which says that objects endure and are the same object moment to moment. But, the B-theorist really has no recourse to use this theory because they hold that one moment of time is equally real to another. This means that there are at least two identical objects that have different properties. This cannot be however, because for objects to be identical, they must have the same properties. The endurantist would appeal to the A-theory of time that sees only the present moment as real. Hence only one object, the person F. F. Bruce to use our earlier example, exists. If you subscribe to the B-theory of time, it looks like you are stuck with perdurantism and thinking that persons are not really persons.
Finally, what is to me the most serious matter regarding perdurantism and the B-theory of time is that of the cross of Christ. Hebrews 10:10 says: "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." If the Christ hanging on the cross is: i) not a person or ii) not the same person who submitted to the will of the Father in the garden of Gethsemane; how can it be rightly said that he atoned for our sin and reconciled us to God? It doesn't seem to me that this can be said if you hold to perdurantism. Likewise, if the B-theory of time is true, Christ forever hangs on the cross, forever offering payment to the Father for our sins that we are committing forever. "Once for all" just doesn't make any sense on the perdurantism/B-theory of time view. And if you hold to the B-theory of time, then you are stuck with perdurantism. So, don't be a perdurantist!
References
1. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 200.
2. Temporal Parts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
3. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 203-6.
One of the main contentions of opponents of this argument is that of the B-theory of time, also called the static conception 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. The implication of this is that the universe doesn't really begin to exist, because the "Big Bang" is always ongoing. If we could travel through time with Doc Brown, we could see the "Big Bang" as it is happening.
The point of this post is not to wrangle with those who argue about the beginning of the universe and thus God's existence, but to present a serious problem to believers who hold to the B-theory of time. Does this mean that I think those Christians who hold to a B-theory cannot believe in God and thus, are not Christians? NO! That is not what I mean. My intention is to convince Christians that hold this view that it is very problematic for one very troubling reason: perdurantism.
In order to understand what perdurantism is, we have to look at what is known as the problem of intrinsic change that the B-theorist encounters. The problem of intrinsic change "is how something can remain self-identical if it has different properties at different times" (1). This basically means how can a person, F. F. Bruce for instance, be F. F. Bruce moment to moment if every moment produces a change in him. A change means an object is taking on or jettisoning properties. B-theorists have posited that people are just 4-dimensional objects (the 4th dimension is time) that appear to us as 3-dimensional objects. So, B-theorists answer that indeed, F. F. Bruce is not the same moment to moment, but simply a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", which philosophers call "hyper-objects" that are extended in both time and space. Since the person we see as F. F. Bruce is but a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", it follows that the F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago is a different part and thus, not identical to the present (to us) F. F. Bruce. In a nutshell, people are not the same self-identifying beings from moment to moment. Philosophers of time who hold this view merely say that objects perdure. So perdurantism is the view that ordinary things like animals, boats and planets have temporal parts (things persist by ‘perduring’) (2). The following is my summary of 3 reasons why perdurantism is false from William Lane Craig (3) followed by some other comments of my own.
1. Perdurantism's account of intrinsic change is implausible.
Since, on perdurantism, an object is a composition of spatio-temporal parts that make up a "hyper-object" in 4 dimensions, none of these parts are identical. But, if none of the parts are identical as the perdurantist admits, then nothing, including the parts or the "hyper-object" actually undergoes any intrinsic change. It is not correct to say that F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago gained wisdom and now has the property of being wise in our time because "present F. F. Bruce" and "F. F. Bruce from twenty years ago" are entirely different 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the hyper-object "F. F. Bruce". The parts merely have different properties that they neither gain nor lose. Thus, there is no intrinsic change going on, it is an illusion of philosophical theory.
2. Perdurantism flies in the face of the phenomenology of personal consciousness.
We know ourselves to be persons. This concept is known as self-consciousness. Perdurantists view people as spatio-temporal parts of hyper-objects with no self-consciousness. This means that these parts are not actually persons, just parts that do not have any of the properties normally associated with personhood. No intellect, emotions, will, moral responsibility, etc. Some perdurantists say that the 3-dimensional objects really are persons and the corresponding 4-dimensional object is a hyper-person, but this doesn't work either. This would mean that the hyper-person is comprised of a number of individual persons having, for instance, their own memories that are not shared by each individual part. So, it isn't really you having that memory of your wedding, it is a distinct, non-identical 3-dimensional part of the 4-dimensional "hyper-you-person". This seems absurd on many levels. Does anyone really think that they are not the same person second to second and that they are recalling someone else's wedding memory while walking down memory lane?
3. Perdurantism is incompatible with moral responsibility, praise, and blame.
Even if we grant that the 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the 4-dimensional hyper-person are persons as well, there is a problem. Since they are all distinct persons, how can a criminal spend his life in jail considering that even 5 minutes later he is not the same person? He can't be held accountable for the crime of "5 minutes ago criminal". If we back up to the initial perdurantist view that these parts are just that, parts not persons, this is even more absurd than our criminal above. How can a part of a 4-dimensional hyper-object be held responsible for good or bad actions? The answer is they cannot.
The balance of probability lies in favor of saying that perdurantism is false. Now, the B-theorist may try to use the opposite theory concerning the problem of intrinsic change. That of endurantism, which says that objects endure and are the same object moment to moment. But, the B-theorist really has no recourse to use this theory because they hold that one moment of time is equally real to another. This means that there are at least two identical objects that have different properties. This cannot be however, because for objects to be identical, they must have the same properties. The endurantist would appeal to the A-theory of time that sees only the present moment as real. Hence only one object, the person F. F. Bruce to use our earlier example, exists. If you subscribe to the B-theory of time, it looks like you are stuck with perdurantism and thinking that persons are not really persons.
Finally, what is to me the most serious matter regarding perdurantism and the B-theory of time is that of the cross of Christ. Hebrews 10:10 says: "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." If the Christ hanging on the cross is: i) not a person or ii) not the same person who submitted to the will of the Father in the garden of Gethsemane; how can it be rightly said that he atoned for our sin and reconciled us to God? It doesn't seem to me that this can be said if you hold to perdurantism. Likewise, if the B-theory of time is true, Christ forever hangs on the cross, forever offering payment to the Father for our sins that we are committing forever. "Once for all" just doesn't make any sense on the perdurantism/B-theory of time view. And if you hold to the B-theory of time, then you are stuck with perdurantism. So, don't be a perdurantist!
References
1. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 200.
2. Temporal Parts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
3. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 203-6.
Monday, April 25, 2016
Wednesday Night Apologetics: Lesson 3
This lesson is about the beginning of the universe. It covers step 3: it is true that the theistic God exists. You can find a more in depth treatment of the kalam cosmological argument here.
ENJOY!
Thursday, February 25, 2016
12 Steps to Christian Theism: Step 3, Metaphysical Realism
In our quest to show that God exists and He has shown Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, we are on step 3, which is: it is true that the theistic God exists. We have discussed both the kalam cosmological argument which argues for a creator from the beginning of the universe and the argument from contingency which argues for a necessary being sustaining the contingent universe. Now we will turn our attention to Thomas Aquinas' argument from metaphysical realism. In order to be clear and concise due to the difficulty of this argument, I'm going to quote directly from Frank Turek and Norman Geisler's booklet entitled; What if Christianity is really true? (1) This is a condensed version of their book; I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist where they lay out the 12 step argument that we are in the midst of. So, none of the following are my own words.
"By observing physical reality we can reason from effect to cause and see that even the most mundane object we encounter can lead us to the existence of God. "There is nowhere the unbeliever can hide in all reality where he is not standing on some ground that can be shown to point to its Creator." (2)
From the cosmological argument, to the design argument, to the argument from objective morality, there are many popular lines of thinking, both scientific and philosophical, showing that theism is true; that is, that there exists a God who is separate from yet active in His creation. We will look at one argument, by 13th century thinker Thomas Aquinas, built upon metaphysical realism.
The argument begins, some thing, a tree for example, undeniably exists. Essence is what a thing is, and whatever is true of a tree is because of its essence or not. For instance, to be a tree is to grow roots, sprout leaves, etc., not to be in a particular location such as a backyard. We must ask, is existence part of what it means to be a tree? The answer is no. Even if all trees ceased to exist we would still know what a tree is because its' essence and existence are distinct. For example, you can know what a unicorn is even though it does not actually exist. From where, then, does existence come? The tree either causes itself to exist, exists necessarily, or is being caused to exist by something else. Self-causation is a contradiction and thus false. Trees go from potentially existing to actually existing and thus do not exist necessarily. Therefore, the tree is being caused to exist.
Whatever is causing the tree to exist is either receiving its existence from another or it necessarily exists by virtue of its essence. Like an infinite chain of train cars with no engine, a chain of existence-receiving causes cannot account for its own existence. Hence, there must exist an uncaused cause, who's essence simply is existence, causing all other things. As Being itself, its essence and existence are identical such that it is unlimited Being while everything else only has being. Aquinas says, this everyone knows to be God. (3)"
And now I'm back. God bless.
Update: Since I started teaching the 12 steps at my church, I posted the rest of this series from those lessons. You can start here. There are 8 total lessons that cover all the steps.
Notes
1. follow the link, step 3
2. Richard Howe, "It's worse than I thought", Quodlibetal Blog: Musings from Anywhere by Dr. Richard G. Howe. http://quodlibetalblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/its-worse-than-i-thought/.
3. Edward Feser, Aquinas (Beginner's Guides) (Kindle locations 573-577). Oneworld publications (academic). Kindle edition.
"By observing physical reality we can reason from effect to cause and see that even the most mundane object we encounter can lead us to the existence of God. "There is nowhere the unbeliever can hide in all reality where he is not standing on some ground that can be shown to point to its Creator." (2)
From the cosmological argument, to the design argument, to the argument from objective morality, there are many popular lines of thinking, both scientific and philosophical, showing that theism is true; that is, that there exists a God who is separate from yet active in His creation. We will look at one argument, by 13th century thinker Thomas Aquinas, built upon metaphysical realism.
The argument begins, some thing, a tree for example, undeniably exists. Essence is what a thing is, and whatever is true of a tree is because of its essence or not. For instance, to be a tree is to grow roots, sprout leaves, etc., not to be in a particular location such as a backyard. We must ask, is existence part of what it means to be a tree? The answer is no. Even if all trees ceased to exist we would still know what a tree is because its' essence and existence are distinct. For example, you can know what a unicorn is even though it does not actually exist. From where, then, does existence come? The tree either causes itself to exist, exists necessarily, or is being caused to exist by something else. Self-causation is a contradiction and thus false. Trees go from potentially existing to actually existing and thus do not exist necessarily. Therefore, the tree is being caused to exist.
Whatever is causing the tree to exist is either receiving its existence from another or it necessarily exists by virtue of its essence. Like an infinite chain of train cars with no engine, a chain of existence-receiving causes cannot account for its own existence. Hence, there must exist an uncaused cause, who's essence simply is existence, causing all other things. As Being itself, its essence and existence are identical such that it is unlimited Being while everything else only has being. Aquinas says, this everyone knows to be God. (3)"
And now I'm back. God bless.
Update: Since I started teaching the 12 steps at my church, I posted the rest of this series from those lessons. You can start here. There are 8 total lessons that cover all the steps.
Notes
1. follow the link, step 3
2. Richard Howe, "It's worse than I thought", Quodlibetal Blog: Musings from Anywhere by Dr. Richard G. Howe. http://quodlibetalblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/its-worse-than-i-thought/.
3. Edward Feser, Aquinas (Beginner's Guides) (Kindle locations 573-577). Oneworld publications (academic). Kindle edition.
Friday, January 29, 2016
12 Steps to Christian Theism: Step 3, The Argument from Contingency
So far, we have covered the first 2 steps: truth about reality is knowable and the opposite of true is false in our trek to Christian theism. Knowing that there is such a thing as truth allows us to then evaluate truth claims made by, for instance: a religion, a professor, a scientist, or a philosopher. Either the claims made by individuals such as these are true or they are false. In our process, step 3 states that it is true that the theistic God exists. This consists of making arguments for the existence of a monotheistic God that would fit the bill for Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Deism. The first argument offered was the kalam cosmological argument which argues for a universe with a beginning and thus, a beginner of that universe. In this installment we are going to take a look at the argument from contingency from the famed German, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz asked: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" When related to the universe, the syllogism goes like this:
1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
This is a philosophical argument that posits the universe is a contingent entity that needs to be continually sustained by a necessary being in order for it to exist. Let's unpack this argument and see where it gets us.
Working backward, we can see that premise 3 is most certainly true. The universe is a thing and this thing does exist. Unless you want to argue that we are in some type of Matrix scenario, which would be unfalsifiable, we can agree that premise 3 is true. Premise 1 is a bit more difficult. I think we can agree on the first part no matter what worldview you currently adhere to. Existing things need explanations. It's the second part that is more tricky. A necessary being exists of its own nature and has no external cause of its existence, while a contingent being is accounted for by causal factors outside itself. Liebniz used his principle of sufficient reason to formulate premise 1. This principle states: "no fact can be real or existent, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise." Many philosophers and cosmologists would posit that the universe is a brute fact without explanation. Many religious folks would posit the same about God. But we want to be better informed and think through this more thoroughly. Liebniz argued that there must be a metaphysically necessary being (a being in which it is impossible for it not to exist) that is the sufficient reason for itself as well as for the existence of every contingent thing. The universe being up for discussion right now, we want to posit that it is contingent, i.e. it relies on something else for its existence. But does it, making the universe contingent?
The universe is contingent and we can see this in a few ways. First of all we have a strong intuition that the universe is contingent and not the metaphysically necessary entity. It is easy to conceive of a universe in which all the fundamental particles of the universe are different or a universe in which there are no concrete objects, only abstract ones. Both of these scenarios seem reasonable. We could also envision universes that have different fundamental laws of nature; something that scientists deal with theoretically all the time. If the universe could have been another way, formulated of different parts or laws or without certain objects that are in the known world, it is contingent. Now that we know the universe is contingent and has an explanation of its existence, what is that explanation? In premise 2 we posit that it is God that is the metaphysically necessary being that sustains everything else. But why? Well, the universe consists of matter, space, time, and energy. So, our metaphysically necessary being cannot consist of those things or, as we have seen, it would be contingent as well. What being do we know of that does not consist of matter, is nonspatial, and atemporal? Either abstract objects or God. Since we learned in the kalam argument that abstract objects do not stand in causal relations to other objects it can't be them, even if they are metaphysically necessary, like some philosophers think about numbers. They simply cannot cause anything. That leaves us with God. I will refer you to the kalam argument post, the conclusion, to discuss the attributes that we can gather from this line of thought for the metaphysically necessary being. Spoiler alert, any religion that posits a deity of any sort that is part of this universe and not transcendent to it is false based on this argument because it would be contingent. This removes from the realm of possibility that it could be: any pagan idol gods, the gods of Hinduism, the god of Mormonism, some sects of Buddhism that have a god, most New Age/Occult worldviews with a god and yes, the flying spaghetti monster. In conclusion, I will leave you with some paraphrased words from William Lane Craig: If you don't want to call the metaphysically necessary being God, you may simply call him the extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being who created the entire universe and everything in it.
Next time we will discuss Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument which is much more philosophically dense than Leibniz's.
1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
This is a philosophical argument that posits the universe is a contingent entity that needs to be continually sustained by a necessary being in order for it to exist. Let's unpack this argument and see where it gets us.
Working backward, we can see that premise 3 is most certainly true. The universe is a thing and this thing does exist. Unless you want to argue that we are in some type of Matrix scenario, which would be unfalsifiable, we can agree that premise 3 is true. Premise 1 is a bit more difficult. I think we can agree on the first part no matter what worldview you currently adhere to. Existing things need explanations. It's the second part that is more tricky. A necessary being exists of its own nature and has no external cause of its existence, while a contingent being is accounted for by causal factors outside itself. Liebniz used his principle of sufficient reason to formulate premise 1. This principle states: "no fact can be real or existent, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise." Many philosophers and cosmologists would posit that the universe is a brute fact without explanation. Many religious folks would posit the same about God. But we want to be better informed and think through this more thoroughly. Liebniz argued that there must be a metaphysically necessary being (a being in which it is impossible for it not to exist) that is the sufficient reason for itself as well as for the existence of every contingent thing. The universe being up for discussion right now, we want to posit that it is contingent, i.e. it relies on something else for its existence. But does it, making the universe contingent?
The universe is contingent and we can see this in a few ways. First of all we have a strong intuition that the universe is contingent and not the metaphysically necessary entity. It is easy to conceive of a universe in which all the fundamental particles of the universe are different or a universe in which there are no concrete objects, only abstract ones. Both of these scenarios seem reasonable. We could also envision universes that have different fundamental laws of nature; something that scientists deal with theoretically all the time. If the universe could have been another way, formulated of different parts or laws or without certain objects that are in the known world, it is contingent. Now that we know the universe is contingent and has an explanation of its existence, what is that explanation? In premise 2 we posit that it is God that is the metaphysically necessary being that sustains everything else. But why? Well, the universe consists of matter, space, time, and energy. So, our metaphysically necessary being cannot consist of those things or, as we have seen, it would be contingent as well. What being do we know of that does not consist of matter, is nonspatial, and atemporal? Either abstract objects or God. Since we learned in the kalam argument that abstract objects do not stand in causal relations to other objects it can't be them, even if they are metaphysically necessary, like some philosophers think about numbers. They simply cannot cause anything. That leaves us with God. I will refer you to the kalam argument post, the conclusion, to discuss the attributes that we can gather from this line of thought for the metaphysically necessary being. Spoiler alert, any religion that posits a deity of any sort that is part of this universe and not transcendent to it is false based on this argument because it would be contingent. This removes from the realm of possibility that it could be: any pagan idol gods, the gods of Hinduism, the god of Mormonism, some sects of Buddhism that have a god, most New Age/Occult worldviews with a god and yes, the flying spaghetti monster. In conclusion, I will leave you with some paraphrased words from William Lane Craig: If you don't want to call the metaphysically necessary being God, you may simply call him the extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being who created the entire universe and everything in it.
Next time we will discuss Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument which is much more philosophically dense than Leibniz's.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
12 Steps to Christian Theism: Step 3, The Kalam Cosmological Argument
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)