Science Demonstrates the Existence of God (Provisionally)

_{Barry Arrington

October 24, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

There are two and only two options with respect to the origin of the universe.

1. An infinite regress of dependent existence.

2. The universe was caused by “that beyond which nothing can be reduced,” to use Dr. Roy Clouser’s definition of God.

More familiar terms for these categories are (1) an infinite regress of contingent causes; and (2) one necessary cause.

Science demonstrates that option 1 is false. The universe had a discrete beginning at the event popularly known as the “big bang.”

Since option 1 is false, it follows that option 2 is true.

All scientific conclusions are provisional. Therefore, this proof does not work to demonstrate the existence of God as a logical certainty. It does demonstrate, however, that if the standard model of cosmology is true, it follows from that truth that God exists.

What about Stephen Hawking’s recent proclamation that we can do without God, you might ask. To which I respond that I can imagine a conversation between God and Dr. Hawking that goes something like this:

Hawking: “I can demonstrate that the big bang happened without you.

God: OK; take your best shot.

Hawking: “Because we have gravity . . .

God: Wait!

Hawking: What?

God: Get your own gravity.

Comments

Petrushka, the claim that "not knowing how is the default state of human knowledge" is clearly false. It contains an internal contradiction, for one thing since the assertion that "not knowing how" is a claim to know. So the default state of human knowledge is to know some things indubitably, and these things are the first principles of logic or reason. There are others, but EVERYONE knows that he exists and that he is what he is. No?tgpeeler_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

p.s. I really like the way Querius makes this argument.tgpeeler_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, I think you are missing the point. We are starting from what we KNOW. We know that we exist. We are changing. We are finite. We are what we are. We are contingent. That is, there was/is a cause of our existence. We KNOW these things. We cannot deny that we exist because we would have to exist to deny anything. Do you see this? Now, from what we KNOW, we use the laws of rational thought, or First Principles of reason, or whatever term you might use for Identity, Non-contradiction, Excluded Middle, and Causality, and reason back to understand the FIRST CAUSE. We can do this confidently because we understand, even if we don't always acknowledge, that reason is sovereign in matters of truth. This is also literally undeniable. If you object to that statement you must argue for why you object for your objection to have any force and when you do that you are using reason to argue that reason isn't enough. I hope you see this. I have always been amused by Kant's work "Critique of Pure Reason." I wondered, did he critique pure reason with impure reason???? This is a "scientific" endeavor in the sense that we are attempting to understand a cause and effect relationship. That's ultimately what science alleges to do, explain cause and effect in the physical world, no? It is a non-scientific endeavor in the sense that it does not involve empirical/sensory data. We reason FROM sense data but our conclusion necessarily takes us beyond sense data. As we will see. There are many different angles or nuances to this, but let's take the idea of change. If something is changing (let's call that an effect) then something was responsible for that change (let's call that a cause). So if we want to trace back along the antecedent chain of causes that started things off we have two and only two possibilities. The chain of causes is infinite or it is finite. The law of excluded middle tells us this. The law of non-contradiction tells us that the chain cannot be both infinite or finite. Let's look at both possibilities. If the chain of causes is infinite, that is, eternal and uncaused, then what we are saying is that the chain of causes never began. Because that's what eternal and uncaused means. But the chain of causes obviously began because we are here. There can be no real infinities in a finite universe. The set of all integers, for example, is an infinite set but only as long as it remains an abstract concept. Once you write one down it is no longer infinite because no matter how many you write down there will always be more. See Hilbert's Hotel for the absurdities resulting from the assumption of a real number of infinite things. So let's look at the possibility, now the certainty, that the universe, the finite, contingent, changing, universe, was caused. If there is a string of causes that precedes right now, and there is, then that string of causes had a beginning so there was a FIRST cause. Well, what about this FIRST cause? Can it be like every other cause in the chain of causes? No. It cannot. Here's why. Every other cause in the chain had a prior cause but the first cause can't have a prior cause because then it wouldn't be first. But we have to have a first cause. So the only possible answer is that the first cause is uncaused. That is, eternal. And from a previous post, immaterial, and so on. So as an exercise in pure (I hope) reason, starting with what we KNOW, we can come to a certain conclusion that there was a First Cause and that the First Cause has certain characteristics. (Coincidentally?) The God of the Bible reveals Himself as a Being that has all of these attributes, plus others, of course, that are beyond a rational exercise (Love, for example).tgpeeler_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, Certain things logically follow from the First Cause being eternal (uncaused). The FC is infinite. (no beginning, always existing, uncaused) Therefore, the FC is a "spirit" or immaterial Being. If it was material, it wouldn't be infinite (we could count it). The FC acted. There wasn't a universe and now there is. In our experience, only living things act. Therefore, the FC is alive. I think it is safe to say that the FC is immensely powerful. One may say omnipotent. The FC had to violate the first law of thermodynamics, after all. Energy can neither be created or destroyed... yet here we are. We can infer great intelligence from the Anthropic Principle. To organize a universe compatible with carbon based life isn't, apparently, such an easy thing to arrange. So many moving parts, moving according to laws, all within strict tolerances and precise inter-relationships, etc... So one can infer many things from the logically necessary truth that the First Cause is uncaused. Does this PROVE that the FC is all of these things? Maybe not. But it gives good reason for thinking that He is.tgpeeler_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Petrushka:
Existence begins from non-existence. Same logic. You cannot assume that this is impossible. Just that you don’t know how. Not knowing how is the default state of human knowledge.
Ok, the Easter bunny is an example of something that doesn't exist. Please explain how anything tangible can possibly begin to exist from the Easter bunny. Yes, it sounds impossible to me, but I'm willing to give old EB a chance to prove itself. ;-)Querius_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

Hi Elizabeth: I wouldn't know how to compare plausibilities. I'd guess I'd say that theories requiring infinite regressions are mathematically interesting, but not good science. The only other example of an infinite regression that I can think of involves a way of trying to rationalize Olber's paradox using a hierarchical fractal cosmology. Regarding the plausibility of God, I'd say that there's no scientific way of evaluating the plausibility of anything except in our own universe. To your final point, I think you might be getting tripped up by imagining a "timeless spaceless universe" as you put it. Such a thing cannot exist. Instead, imagine that each change in the universe is an Event, and each Event is preceded by its corresponding Cause. Without Events and their Causes, the universe would never change. The very First Event in this chain of Events must have been the instant ex nihilo existence of our universe (which would be a spectacularly miraculous event if it lacked a Cause). - This First Event obviously cannot have been caused by anything within the not-yet-existing universe. - Non-existence cannot be a spontaneous Cause for the existence of the entire universe any more than the Easter bunny can. (People have trouble imagining non-existence, which is why I refer to the non-existent Easter bunny). Thus, the First Cause must have originated outside our universe.Querius_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

Charles: I must apologize for having repeated (more or less) some of the things you has already said in your post 5.1.2.1.4. I had not read it (I really get lost in this system of hyerarchies!). Anyway, I am happy and honored that we seem to share some concepts.gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth: The facts itself that the big bang is considered the origin of the universe form some original singularity, or rtaher from quantum vacuum, is proof enough that we van concieve causality independently from space and time, because space and time would not be present in that original singularity, or in the quantum vacuum, if I understand well (I am not a physicist). The fact is, the phenomenal world seems to have an origin. Space seem to have an origin. Time seems to have an origin. The same things could well have an end, too. It's perfectly natural to hypothesize that they have an origin from some other reality. We may not be able to apply those thought categories to that "original reality". But the facts remains that, if it exists, it was the origin of what we observe. Maybe this is not the usual causality we apply to phenomenal events. But it is definitely something.gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

"assuming cosmologists are right about Big Bang being the origin of space-time, which they may not be" wowjunkdnaforlife_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

rhampton7: That a Big Bang occurred is not the issue, but that it must be a point of origin. The Big Bang is a point of origin. Get over it. Much of the effort and difficulty in quantum cosmology is to explain how it began (originated) from whatever and became what we observe. Susskind favors a megaverse interpretation of string theory that does not need a first cause other than itself I would like to see a specific quote and citation of Susskind's explanation of a self-caused universe. Otherwise, even theoretically, his interpretation again depends upon preexisting complex 'vacua' which are not "nothing". The point being that the origin of the universe – if it even has one – is an open question and one not easily resolved. Not easily resolved as to cause and mechanism, yes. But not that it had an origin. Hawking and Hartle in their no boundary proposal stated "In other words, the ground state is the amplitude for the Universe to appear from nothing." Susskind theorizes "initial states". An "appearance from nothing" or an "initial state" is an origin, a beginning. Whether called a "ground state at t=0", "initial conditions", "quantum origin", "quantum birth of the Universe" or "singularity", etc. they all refer to an origin.Charles_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Well, many physicist would disagree with you, Barry, and it's pretty difficult to see how causality could exist outside space-time. Try defining "cauality" without resorting to temporal-spatial concepts.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Prove that causality exists apart of space-time. You can't. It's a metaphysical assumption. Logic simply can not be reveal truth when there is no way to determine the laws/properties of what might exist outside our universe.rhampton7_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

"Aren't we in fact talking about the beginning of causality?" No, we are not. Causality is a construct of logic. It exists apart from space-time and therefore did not "begin" with space time any more than 1+1=2 "began" with space-time.Barry Arrington_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

That a Big Bang occurred is not the issue, but that it must be a point of origin. And models like Hawkin-Moss, Hawking-Turok, et. al. describe open systems without a true "beginning" much like the Hawking-Hartle closed system. Susskind favors a megaverse interpretation of string theory that does not need a first cause other than itself (in which case, you could describe it as a pantheist argrument, but that is not what Susskind believes). The point being that the origin of the universe - if it even has one - is an open question and one not easily resolved. You can claim otherwise, but Science has not yet provided a definitive answer.rhampton7_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

rhampton7: There were a number problems with Hartle-Hawkings "no boundary" universe when they first proposed it, and I'm not aware that any of those problems have diminished. The Hartle-Hawkings Wave Function of the Universe ground state: - presumes imaginary time in a closed universe, whereas all the recent observations are our universe is open and time is real - should become a very nearly empty de Sitter spacetime, which it isn't - still presumes quantum gravity, which as Barry joked, is not literally "from nothing". Hartle and Hawking concluded: "The ground-state wave function in the simple minisuperspace model that we have considered with a conformally invariant field does not correspond to the quantum state of the Universe that we live in because the matter wave function does not oscillate." Hawking himself later admits in "A Brief History of Time" that when his mathematical artifice of using imaginary numbers for time (in a Wave Function of the Universe) is converted back into real time, the singularity he sought to avoid reappears. It would seem that as recently as Dec 2006, Don N. Page in Susskind’s Challenge to the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Proposal and Possible Resolutions further concluded:
In summary, Susskind has raised a serious challenge to the Hartle-Hawking noboundary proposal for the quantum state of the universe. There are several potential resolutions of this challenge, but it is not yet clear whether any of them is satisfactory. If no resolutions can be found, the challenge leaves us with the mystery of what the quantum state might be to be consistent with our observations.
BTW, Don N. Page is the same author of the "Boundary Condition" paper you cited, so I presume you find him equally credible when sustaining Susskind's challenges to Hartle-Hawkings flawed quantum gravity cosmology. As for your suggestion that string theory holds possible answers, it remains challenged by what appears to be an increasing acceleration in the observed universe, not to mention its reliance on supersymmetry which itself is increasingly challenged by lack of evidence from the LHC.Charles_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

I lasted two minutes into the first one. If Craig can't see the difference in causal assumption between a Bengal tiger popping into existence fully formed, and an undifferentiated hot 'soup' of fundamental particles - even a huge, huge number of fundamental particles - he really ain't worth listening to.Chas D_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Just saying you have a supernatural cause doesn't add to knowledge. It's just another form of "I don't know," but lacking in humility. Calling something God doesn't assign any attributes. It just pretends to be an explanation.Petrushka_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Querius: why is an infinite regress of causes any less plausible than an infinite God? Indeed, when we talk about the beginning of space-time (assuming cosmologists are right about Big Bang being the origin of space-time, which they may not be), aren't we in fact talking about the beginning of causality? What would causality mean in a timeless, spaceless universe? Isn't right question therefore: "what causes causality"? In which case, doesn't it answer itself? Causality by definition cannot be caused. Ergo, the universe is uncaused.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

You cannot get around the thermodynamics limitations. The universe is not eternal. It began. It is finite. Therefore, it has a cause. I know it's hard to follow reason and evidence wherever it leads, particularly when it leads to God. But there you have it.tgpeeler_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: thank you for the interesting proposals. I fully endorse #1, that can be a good description of a god. I appreciate the other three, but personally I would not consider them good explanations. But you know, it's personal.gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

1. No creation of existence. Once you have admitted the possibility of the existence of an uncreated entity, you can't logically assert that everything that exists must have a beginning. The word beginning suggests time, and existence without time appears to be possible, and even likely. 2. Existence begins from non-existence. Same logic. You cannot assume that this is impossible. Just that you don't know how. Not knowing how is the default state of human knowledge. 3. A infinite regress of creator gods. 4. An infinite number of creator gods. 5. Any of a number of things I haven't thought of. Most of what we know about physics would have made no sense to an educated person a thousand years ago. The fact that we haven't thought of something doesn't restrict possible explanations.Petrushka_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: Just give the third, and fourth, and fifth... We are here to listen.gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: You can assign another word, obviously. Another name. Whatever you want. But the concept that there was a first cause is important, and it opens the way to much philosophical reasoning about the possible relationship between this cause and its effects (including us). I don't know if that is information (it probably is), but it certanly is knowledge. You know, that strange habit of humans of creating maps of reality, maps that, while never being the same as reality, are often useful (if they are good maps!).gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

I'm rather curious how much information is generated by assigning the word God to the first cause. Other than having a label, what do you know that you didn't know before?Petrushka_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

There are two and only two options with respect to the origin of the universe.
Right away the essay is off on the wrong foot.Petrushka_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

"Eternal. Like God..." Surely the universe is finite, that is, had a beginning, and therefore is not eternal. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (as I understand it, the laws of thermodynamics are the most certain in science so good luck arguing with them) tell us this is so. The first law says that energy can neither be created or destroyed so whatever exists is limited. Nothing more is being made and nothing is being destroyed. This tells us that the universe is finite. We have a certain number of "marbles" and that's it. No more, no less. The second law says that entropy is increasing and in any closed system, which the universe is, (see 1st law) the usable energy will eventually be gone. That is, we have a certain number of marbles and we can only move them around for so long. Let me illustrate with a thought experiment. Let's say that we walk into a parking lot and there is a car running. You say, I wonder how long that car has been running? If I said, it's been running forever, you'd look at me as if I'd lost my mind. For one thing, you'd immediately say something like, look, the car can't have been running forever because someone had to start it. And I know that because if it had been running "forever" then it would have been out of gas long ago. But it isn't. So it's been running for a finite amount of time and someone started it. You would also realize, upon reflection, that the car could not account for itself. Someone had to manufacture it. Now think universe instead of car and you're there. The laws of logic or reason are not "philosophical opinion." They are undeniably true and they are the foundation for all rational thought. For Christians, it's an extra bonus that God describes Himself in that way as "I AM" and "I am." The law of identity, in other words. So we understand that rational thought is grounded in God because it is an attribute of God. I hope this makes sense. I hope this helps.tgpeeler_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Oh yeah. For anyone not familiar with the Kalam Cosmological argument, here's my version: 1. Do you believe that the universe (mass-energy, time, and space) had a beginning, or do you believe that it always existed? Most scientists believe it had a beginning, otherwise the universe would have had to traverse an infinite amount of time to get to the present, and the universe would now have an infinite amount of entropy (disorder), which it doesn't now have. 2. Do you believe that the beginning of the universe (mass-energy, time, and space) was caused, or was it uncaused? Scientists believe that everything that exists or that occurs has a cause, and that without causality, nothing in science can be known. 3. Do you believe that the cause of the universe was natural (according to the laws of physics), or was it outside of nature (supernatural)? It’s difficult to argue that the cause of the universe was due to a natural agent within the universe if the universe didn’t even exist then. The non-existent universe would have had to cause itself. 4. Do you believe that the cause of the universe (mass-energy, time, and space), whatever it was, itself had a cause, or was it uncaused? If the agent that caused the universe had a cause, what was its cause, and what was the cause of that cause, and so on. Thus, at some point, you have to have an uncaused agent. 5. What is an agent that can bring into existence the entire universe (mass-energy, time, and space), exists outside of nature (the laws of physics), and that has no cause for its own existence (timeless)? God.Querius_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77, I watched both videos. The virtual particles associated with quantum effects occur *only* in space and time. It is a mistake to assume that these fluctuations can occur spontaneously in something that doesn't exist such as was the case before the universe was created. Thus, universes also cannot generate spontaneously out of non-existence any more than they can generate spontaneously out of phlogiston, aether, chicken lips, the Easter bunny, or Kosher ham. ;-) There's no escaping a supernatural cause.Querius_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

To me there is a reason to reject #1 (Infinite regress) on the basis of logical absurdities that follow from an actual infinite causal regress. The logically sound answer to someone contemplating this kind of causal regress is to remind him/her that, if it were true & the existence of consciousness is true, then the existence of The Ultimate Being* is certain to the extent that the need for an infinite regress would succumb to this Being's necessity, purely based on the way things would have had to progressed in this hypothetical causal state without a beginning. I call this "the trap of progress** in an infinite causal past". *(...that is the only truly necessary Thing that can only be so because you it has no cause, because if it has a cause it is not necessary but the cause.) **(... progress in this sense is any state of causal progression. It has to include any possible state accept nothing.)mullerpr_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

The universe has an origin as proven and evidenced by the “Big Bang” ... The universe can not cause itself
See Quantum Cosmology for why this may be possible, including a Big Bang that is not an origin (boundary conditions). Some variations of String Theory also address the causation problem without restorting to a god-like entity (String Cosmology).rhampton7_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply