A Question About My Book on the Beginning of the Universe
Dear Mr. Loftus,Glad to know people are reading my book and think it's informative and hopefully helpful. Thanks for your thoughtful question. I wrote the book over a decade. Some of the chapters began as handouts in classes which I later revised for the book and so you can see development in it. The chapter on prayer was originally written for a church study group. As my thinking changed I tried to harmonize everything with my later perspective, but was probably unsuccessful. The fact is that we cannot say time began. There was no cosmic singularity so we don't know what took place before. So while our universe began to exist we cannot say that it did not come from out of a previous black hole explosion or through tunneling from another universe. The point about the Kalam argument is that it does not show our universe had a beginning in time. To repeat. Our universe began to exist but we cannot say time began to exist with our universe. My argument against the Kalam is that it doesn't show time began to exist either.
I have just started your very informative book, “Why I am an Atheist.” I am trying to better understand your arguments. You said on page 83 that the big bang theory shows that “our universe began to exist.” Then, on page 85 you state, “Craig’s second premise is that the universe began to exist. It too has difficulties.” This seems to be a contradiction. Could you help me understand what you mean by these statements? Did our universe begin to exist or not? You seem to be saying that science proves the universe did begin to exist when refuting Thomas Aquinas, but that it did not begin to exist when refuting William Craig.
Cheers.
15 comments:
My take on it is akin to what Stephen Hawking wrote in "A Brief History of Time". Time and space, linked as they are, started at the "Big Bang". Asking what came beforehand is like asking what is north of the North Pole.
Therefore you can say without contradiction that "The Universe is 14 Billion Years Old" and that "The Universe has always existed" because time is also 14 billion years old.
The universe did not "begin" to exist or "come from nothing". It has always been, for 14 billion years, which is as long as always is.
Then again I'm not a professional physicist so I might be full of shit :)
One formulation of the Kallam argument argues from causation independent of time.
Why is time do important?
Contradictions amongst the reasons are kind of a problem for the cummulative case approach.
I also have noted that your criticism of probability for intelligent design is not consistent with your appeal to probability in other areas (ie a trinitarian God is less likely than a solitary God which is unlikely enough as it is) which are often subjective. AGain, the one is far closer to being objectively measurable than the other wich is a purely subjective assesement which could never hope to be calculated objectively and mathematically.
One aspect of time is that it measures movement or change. God is unchanging in the sense of his nature, being and essence. This is partially why he is described as being eternal or without time.
John what you are doing is exercising FAITH in any proposition that allows you to speculate that the universe was born out of some kind of universal pregnancy. That's sounds ridiculous but that's what you're describing. A universe that has its own birthdate among many like universes all having their own time and time beginning in none of them until they begin to exist....That's an exercise of more faith than what it takes to belive the biblical narrative...In fact your faith is totally blind and without any foundation.
The lengths that the atheist will go to to deny premises that they say they value when they affirm Christianity is amazing.
John, actually I am not sure you are correct (or maybe just a wee bit unclear ;-). Time is a fundamental property of the *universe* as a system; yes, the universe had a beginning 13.7bn years ago, but as you say there was nothing "before" that - it is a meaningless point.
Kalam is an interesting, but hugely flawed argument; "everything that begins to exist has a cause"... like WHAT? Can Craig name anything that actually begins to exist? Like a chair, for instance? Well, all we can really say about that is that various atoms get rearranged into a configuration that can be used as a chair, but it doesn't "begin to exist" in any strict sense. All we are *really* seeing is the outworking of a system.
The universe itself is a system; 13.7bn years ago we have the initial state, and everything since then has been the outworking of that system according to whatever mathematical rule(s) govern the state at t+1 given the state at t.
At t[0] there does not need to be a t[-1]. Example might be the Fibonacci sequence: at t[0] we have 0,1. At t[1] we have 1,1. at T[2] we have 1,2 and so forth. It is meaningless to ask what "caused" the Fibonacci sequence. Ditto for the universe (which is a bit more complex of course ;-)
But Kalam really comes off the rails in regard to what the "cause" might be - let's accept Craig's notion that a "personal being" is necessary. That being has to formulate the idea, then act on it. That implies TIME. So what state of that being *preceded* the thought? And if that is the case, the being (sorry, Harvey!) *cannot* be unchanging, because its internal mental state has altered.
Kalam is really self-refuting; it is its own reductio ad absurdam.
It does however have the value of pointing us in the direction of what the real nature of the universe must actually be. And that is mathematical. I would strongly advise reading Max Tegmark's article about the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.
Exactly right, Harvey. The atheist faith never ceases to amaze me too. Funny that, to justify its beliefs, it often puts the 'science' stamp on things that are, in fact, philosophy.
Al, Harvey, no - you don't quite get it. The problem is that the Kalam cosmological argument (and by extension, Aquinas's first 3/5) simply do not *work*. Whether or not one believes in gods is irrelevant in this context - the arguments for god are unsound.
In exploring *why* they are unsound, we can of course reach a deeper understanding (and maybe even stumble across something testable! Yippee!), and that is a good thing. But Kalam remains wrong, regardless of whether the gods exist or not.
Shane,
my post obviously did not reference to the Kalam argument. If that argument works is another matter.
Al, your post didn't reference anything of substance, so I was simply assuming it referred to the foregoing - apols if I have misrepresented you.
John, I'm finding your presentation here rather confused:
"The fact is that we cannot say time began. There was no cosmic singularity so we don't know what took place before. So while our universe began to exist..."
If we can't say time began, why do you so confidently state that the universe began to exist?
The fact is that we simply do not know what happened before the Planck time. Any speculation about singularities, infinitely branching universes or colliding branes is just that: speculation. It is not established science and it should not be treated as established science. I'll say it again for emphasis: we don't know whether the universe began to exist.
The Big Bang model tells us that the universe was a very different place 13 billion years ago. It is about how the universe has changed, NOT about how the universe began. I wish people could get this straight - it would prevent a lot of silliness. (Scientists are not blameless in the misconceptions that abound; a lot of confusing junk has been written in the name of science popularization.)
" "everything that begins to exist has a cause"... like WHAT?"
basically...everything. you must be unfamiliar with the big bang model of the universe. it is a commonly accepted fact that what exists today did not always exist. viola, causality
"It is meaningless to ask what "caused" the universe"
since it hasn't always existed, then it certainly does have meaning. and there are very good reasons for accepting that God created the universe as opposed to the lack of reasons to think that He didn't.
"Kalam is really self-refuting; it is its own reductio ad absurdam."
you seem to have a profound lack of understanding of the argument. either the universe was caused or not. we know that it was. what caused it? the best response is God. all other alternatives have been weighed for centuries and they suck.
bfnii: you must be unfamiliar with the Big Bang model (nor did you bother to read the post immediately above yours): it says NOTHING about whether the universe "was created."
Craig's arguments for the premise that "The universe began to exist" are based on crummy physics (misunderstanding the Big Bang model), crummy math (misunderstanding the nature of infinite sets), and crummy philosophy (arguing for "metaphysical impossibility" of infinite things on the basis of his own personal incredulity).
"Craig's arguments for the premise that "The universe began to exist" are based on crummy physics (misunderstanding the Big Bang model), crummy math (misunderstanding the nature of infinite sets), and crummy philosophy (arguing for "metaphysical impossibility" of infinite things on the basis of his own personal incredulity)."
What part of the big bang model suggests that the universe did not have a beginning? What do infinite sets have to do with the beginning of the universe?
"You mean that it perplexes you."
No, I mean that even scientists are confounded frequently. Therefore, relying on them as the highest authority is tenuous at best
"I am perplexed that people would think a book that has consistently demonstrated that it has only a bronze age understanding of the world can better explain anything than we can today."
From the perspective of the people reading the book (observations with the naked eye), they accurately recorded the world around them. Is there something wrong with that?
"You didn’t say equivalent, but you said this: “bfnii: 1. “science isn't without it's flaws so it's at most, no better than any other belief system.”"
I was responding to the idea that naturalism/non-theism is the best worldview. Since it’s based on scientific understanding and science itself is flawed and even subjective at times, naturalism/non-theism is certainly no better than any other worldview and in some cases, worse.
"You demonstrate a casual use of language and a dilettantish understanding of science. You should look up “scientific fact” on Wikipedia. Scientists don’t disagree on scientific facts, they disagree on the explanations for these facts. That is why Behe can’t deny Evolution (a scientific fact) but does deny the mechanisms behind it."
I don’t disagree with these statements and I’m not sure how my posts reflect something different
"It is a typical creationist red herring to suggest that disagreement among scientists about explanations means that we are foolish to accept the conclusions of science. Did you even read the Asimov article I linked to?"
I never said accepting scientific conclusions was foolish. I have said that relying on science as the highest authority is a flawed, incomplete worldview. I’ve even gotten some agreement from non-theists on this point
"True. But some do. You appear to be among them."
let me assure you, I am not and I know plenty of Christians who feel the same. However, I understand your need to paint all Christians as dogmatic and ignorant because it makes a convenient strawman. I do understand the difference between the data and the conclusions drawn from the data
"No, scientists agree on the method – i.e., the scientific method, and methodological materialism. On this they are in universal agreement, and it is precisely (and only) that that makes them scientists."
I’m not sure this is accurate. First, there really isn’t one ubiquitous scientific method. There are scientific methods just like there are scientific disciplines. I’m not suggesting they are in conflict. I’m just saying there is more than one method. Second, if you’ve studied philosophy of science, then you know that not all scientists agree on which methods to use when, the degree to which they are employed, etc. Incidentally, I’m not suggesting any of this is unhealthy. Actually, the process works quite well for us. however, it’s important to understand the limitations of science as a whole.
"Yes, scientists disagree about conclusions (explanations). Always have, always will. Unlike Christians, they have a reliable method for resolving these disagreements. Hence, the OP."
Again, you’re painting a picture of science that’s probably a little more rosy than it really is. the scientists I know agree that all observation is theory laden.
Post a Comment