Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Sal Eye]

The video I am referencing by the way is here:

https://youtu.be/tx0eb8ydDyM

Let’s begin with one of the arguments that Pat makes. I use the word “argument” gently in the philosophical/logical sense, not in a confrontational sense. He is persuading us and making a point, explaining his thinking, which is healthy and good.

At around the 21:10 time mark, he begins discussing things we have observed from telescope probing (both optical and radio) and the implications for cosmology. Scientists largely agree that there was a Big Bang. And thus the universe had a beginning. Pat infers from this that if something had a beginning, there must be some intelligence behind it. Does this seem persuasive to you?

It seems there is much we don’t know about the universe’s beginning. Some theories propose multiple universes in a larger, perhaps infinite “space.” I wonder if they spring into existence from time to time. And how? Was it really from nothing at all? Is it ok if all of this is so mind boggling and far removed from our experience that I don’t feel persuaded by it? Should I study cosmology more?

[jimwalton]

Excellent place to begin—at the beginning

Pat is handling a cosmological argument about as briefly as possible, and I mean that. He mentions it, and moves on, without further explanation. That’s because he’s trying to cover more ground than 30 minutes allows. But we can take the leisurely route and dig into these things much further.

First of all, the Big Bang. In science, for the time being, this is a virtual no-brainer. “All” scientists believe at this point that the universe is finite and that it had a beginning. Georges Lemaitre (the first to identify the idea of an expanding universe, later confirmed by Hubble) speculated that the whole universe emerged from a dimensionless singularity (a virtual nothing), consisting of no matter and no dimension, where the laws of nature and physical forces were as yet nonexistent. As you know, his theory has since been "confirmed,” been built on, and further speculated about. The problem with his theory for scientists is the First Cause: what made the Bang go “bang.” Now there are speculations about energy being present there (since energy can neither be created nor destroyed), with a still-unknown causative mechanism. Scientifically and philosophically this is problematic, so let’s dive in.

You may be familiar with Kalam’s theory. Ilm al-Kalam proposed that unless there was a beginning, there wouldn’t be a present. Think of it this way: Suppose you go to the grocery store and, approaching the deli counter, you plan to take a ticket for your proper turn. But on the ticket-dispenser you see a sign that says, “Before taking this ticket, you must take a ticket from the machine on the right.” You reach for that machine, but it also has a similar sign on it. The third machine has the same sign. And the fourth. This could go on forever (which is Kalam’s point), unless you finally get to a machine somewhere in the line that allows you to take a ticket. Unless there is a beginning, there can be no present. Therefore, Kalam claims, the universe HAD to have a beginning.
Kalam’s case could also be stated mathematically. Instead of starting counting at 1, start at the first number after zero. Well, you can’t start at .9, because there’s .8, .7, etc. You can’t start at .1 because there’s .99, and there’s .999, and .9999. In other words, if we have to consider an infinite quantity of previous numbers, we can’t even begin to count. There has to be a beginning, or there can’t be a present.

Here is the way Kalam’s argument looks:

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

That’s the first checkpoint.

OK, so the universe had a beginning, and it had a cause. What caused it? Everything we see around us had to have come from somewhere—something that made it come into existence. Things don’t just pop into existence all by themselves. Other things make them come into existence. Science gives us no evidence of anything that began to exist spontaneously of its own volition. We know of nothing that at any time began to exist from its own nature (How can something pop itself into existence when it doesn’t exist?). If we have nothing, we get nothing. But there is something. Since the universe had a beginning, then, logically (and scientifically) it had a cause outside of itself, whether technological, mechanical, or even biological.

There’s a fancy thing called the “Leibnitzian Cosmological Argument.” Whew, a mouthful. It’s “the Principle for Sufficient Reason.” Leibnitz postulated that everything has to have a sufficient reason for its existence, and there are basically two choices: (1) self, or (2) something outside of self.” Science is telling us that the causal mechanism of the universe was something outside of itself. Something outside of nature had to have already existed, and it makes logical sense that this something outside of nature was the causal mechanism of everything we see. That’s the second checkpoint.

What was that cause? Well, it must have been an eternal cause if this “something” always existed. And something must have always existed (energy or something else). There must be some eternal cause.

Second, it must be a timeless cause. If the past were infinite, we would have no present (Kalam). Only if the past is finite can there be a present, so the sufficient cause must be timeless.

Third, it must be a personal cause. Science tells us that impersonal causes must have first causes. Only personal causes are capable of being first causes. Kinetic energy is energy in motion; potential energy is energy stored. The only way something beings in motion is if there is a first cause, and first causes are always personal.

Fourth, it must be a powerful cause to be sufficient for the universe we see. The universe itself displays power.

Fifth, it must be an intelligent cause (here we have finally reached Pat’s sentence). Science tells us that informational data comes from previous informational data. We have no example of informational data that doesn’t come from previous informational data, though geneticists and biologists are on the trail of how informational data began.

So my third checkpoint is this: the cause of universe, if we follow logic, was eternal, timeless, personal, powerful, and intelligent. If we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, such reasoning and evidence leads us to God.

I know, I know, this is getting long. Well, the mean between Pat’s sentence and my “book” is an answer of reasonable length!

What about multiverses (still a speculative theory in a fetal stage)? First, there is as of yet no empirical evidence supporting the existence of multiverses. Second, even multiverses still require first causes. There are some pretty far-out discussion of multiverses happening in some scientific corners, but such discussion are more in the area of “known unknowability” (we know we will never know such things) than they are “science.” We have to deal with the conundrum of why there is something rather than nothing—and how “something” got here.

How little we still know. Dark matter, quantum theory, string theory, relativity… It’s mind-boggling, but fun!

To me the logical and scientific evidence points us in the direction of God. If we are following the evidence where it leads, and if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, we are inferring…

• Something has to be eternal, whether matter, energy, or something metaphysical
• The universe had a beginning
• The cause of the universe is outside of itself and outside of nature
• The first cause is eternal, timeless, powerful, personal, and intelligent

In my thinking, the strongest answer is God.

What fun this is! Thanks for writing. I’ll be anxious to hear your reply.

[Sal Eye]

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough reply. I feel a bit stressed trying to digest it fully, but this seems to be precisely what I need to do to find relief from the spiritual anguish and pain I feel. So I will persevere and break it down piece by piece.

Your discussion of the Kalām Cosmological Argument has me scratching my head. I don’t mean that in a disparaging way. It just isn’t clear to me that any conclusion can be drawn from the ticket example that you offered. It seems contrived to me. I hope that isn’t offensive sounding or insulting. I just have to explain what I am feeling and thinking so that you can help me. Please understand. I am trying to come at all of this from a good place in my heart.

In what way does the ticket system mimic anything of substance in nature or existence? It seems like the analogy must be compelling me to see some parallel in the universe itself. I don’t quite see it. It strikes me that time represents a measure between events. I don’t need to find an absolute beginning in time to take relative measurements of time and utilize its properties today. I have a sense of “now” and the present even if I can imagine an infinite past. The numerical example is similarly confounding. It seems to be using artificial analytical constructions (math) to make claims about the synthetic universe.

Maybe I need to read more about it. I see there is a 1979 book by William Lane Craig on this subject. What resource do you recommend? From where did you first learn about Ilm al-Kalām?

One thing you noted in your formulation of the Kalām argument is:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Maybe I need to see the argument for this to better understand the usage of infinite regress examples to make some further point. It seems rather obvious and intuitive, I certainly agree, that everything has a cause. But intuition can be wildly misleading. Physics seems full of counterintuitive theory that is experimentally confirmed.

How do you tackle quantum foam in this context? Things seem to spring into and out of existence in the universe all the time. Maybe it is for very short durations and highly localized, but even so. I don’t know how one characterizes the “cause” of such events. Do scientists not see them as spontaneous?

It seems there is so much we can’t fully account for to draw too confident or sharp a conclusion. Maybe I need to study some more. Or maybe I should not have tackled this area first.

I am way out of my depth in the physics realm. Quantum foam seems like a purely theoretical construct with no empirical evidence. I will have to patiently read and perhaps some day better understand quantum physics in general (and related subjects). I do try.

[jimwalton]

> Kalām Cosmological Argument …It just isn’t clear to me that any conclusion can be drawn from the ticket example that you offered.

Science tells us that the universe had a beginning. Kalam’s argument is a philosophical approach saying the same thing: The universe had to have had a beginning. That’s all that was all about. The ticket example is showing that unless there was a beginning there couldn’t now be a “present.” The idea behind it is that both science and logic tell us that the universe had a beginning. That idea leads us to causality: If it had a beginning, it must have had a cause. And since nothing that starts to exist can be its own cause, that leads us to look outside of the natural sciences for that cause. That’s what I was getting at, and what Kalam’s Cosmological Argument is about. Hopefully that helps, but if not, we can keep trying, and talking. Kalam’s argument doesn’t lead us to theism, but only points away from naturalism.

> In what way does the ticket system mimic anything of substance in nature or existence?

It doesn’t, so you are thinking correctly and well. The ticket system only illustrates that that had to have been a beginning, that’s all. It’s a logical proposition to show the truth of the current scientific perspective: the universe indeed had a beginning. It had to have.

> I have a sense of “now” and the present even if I can imagine an infinite past.

Yes, but Kalam’s reasoning says we can only have that sense of “now” and the present if there were a beginning. While we might be able to imagine an infinite past, Kalam’s line of thinking illustrates that we can only actually have a “now” if at one time we had a beginning. We may be able to imagine that 2 + 2 could equal 5, or that unicorns exist, but imagination doesn’t make it logical or probable.

> a 1979 book by William Lane Craig on this subject. What resource do you recommend? From where did you first learn about Ilm al-Kalām?

I learned about Kalam’s thinking from a variety of sources, both philosophical and scientific. I don’t really remember where I first intersected it.

> Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Kalam’s thought agrees with science—that nothing spontaneously generates ex nihilo of its own accord. It’s both logically and scientifically impossible that something that does not exist can be its own causal mechanism. If it begins at some time to exist, it must be caused by something that already exists. Only something that never begins to exist (something that is eternal) doesn’t need to be caused. Does that make sense?

> But intuition can be wildly misleading. Physics seems full of counterintuitive theory that is experimentally confirmed.

Agreed. Kalam’s theory doesn’t just weigh against the counterintuitive, but instead against the absurd, impossibly, and illogical. The point is that something that does not exist simply cannot be instrumental in its own ex nihilo self-genesis.

> Quantum foam

As far as I know, quantum foam is not a substance but rather a descriptor of fluctuations in the space-time continuum. I realize that many things exist that don’t have material substance (such as time), but our conversation is about how did the universe of matter begin. My point in my previous email was that since it had a beginning, it has to have had a cause outside of itself, viz., outside of nature.

> It seems there is so much we can’t fully account for to draw too confident or sharp a conclusion

Clearly there is still much to learn, but we can still reason that if something doesn’t exist it can’t cause its own generation.

> I hope that isn’t offensive sounding or insulting.

By the way, none of anything you’ve written is offensive or insulting. We’re just talking things through. Let’s keep talking. There is so much more on the table.

[Sal Eye]

I think the Kalām Cosmological argument and the ticket example are saying this:

Logically, if some event occurs, it must have a causing event. And then that event itself must have a cause. And so on. At some point you have to land at a first cause, or else you end up with an infinite chain of events each pointing back to a cause, without end. You can’t keep pointing back with your dependencies. That isn’t logical. It is absurd. So this argument is purely an argument from logic. But it does echo or represent nature in the sense that nature follows these causal rules that form the logic of the argument. If nature weren’t causal in the same way, the logic of the argument would not be relevant. I think that is it. And yes it is compelling.

[jimwalton]

Yeah, that’s it. So if we have that part clear (enough), what’s next?


(NOTE: This discussion continues under the heading "Biology and Evolutionary Theory," also here in the "Creation and Evolution" forum.)