The Big Bang, The First Cause, and God

_{Eric Anderson
July 10, 2016

Atheism, Big Bang, Cosmology, Fine tuning, Logic and Reason, Multiverse, Philosophy

10}_{Categories
Atheism
Big Bang
Cosmology
Fine tuning
Logic and Reason
Multiverse
Philosophy}

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

Over on a recent thread there has been much interesting discussion about a recent debate between theist philosopher Rabbi Daniel Rowe and atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling. HeKS provided a review of the matter, focusing largely on his analysis of Jerry Coyne’s responses.

I agree with HeKS’s general observation that Coyne failed to adequately address the issues. Indeed, it seems Coyne failed to adequately understand some of the issues, a situation that is all too common.

However, I want to focus in this post on a specific aspect of the discussion, namely, some of the points raised by sean samis, starting @37 on that thread. In his comments, samis urges caution in drawing any conclusion from the Big Bang about deity’s existence or involvement. I do not necessarily share all of his conclusions, but I think a number of his points are worthy of additional discussion.

First of all, let me apologize to HeKS for starting a new thread. I initially began this as a comment to the prior thread, but it became long enough that it required a separate post. Additionally, I want to focus on a specific issue that tacks in a slightly different direction than the prior thread.

If the Universe Had a Beginning, then What?

samis begins by addressing the question of the universe being created ex nihilo:

The proper response to the creation ex nihilo argument is that science does not believe or claim that our universe was created ex nihilo. The argument is a red herring.

This is an important point, and one on which the Big Bang arguments for God seem to flounder. The fact that the universe had a beginning (and we should note here for accuracy’s sake that this is not a “fact” in an observational sense, but an inference), does not mean that whatever caused the universe had to be the First Cause or had to be God, in any sense of that word. That the universe had a beginning just means that something caused the universe. Nothing more; nothing less.

We can, indeed we must, approach claims of a multiverse or cosmic bubbles or some other universe-generating natural phenomenon with extreme skepticism. There are many problems with such ideas, which have been well detailed previously in these pages. But it simply does not follow that because the universe had a beginning that it must have been caused by the First Cause or that the First Cause has to be God.

Rather, what can be said is that: (a) no-one has any real observational evidence as to the cause of the universe; and (b) it is possible that the cause of the universe was the First Cause. In addition, we might add that (c) it is possible that the First Cause had a plan, a purpose, an intent, a desire, a design – attributes similar to what we see ourselves possessing as rational, intelligent, individual, creative beings.

The foregoing is a more modest claim. It is a reasonable claim, a supportable claim, a claim that is not at all challenged by the silly responses of the likes of Coyne & Co. It is certainly as good of a claim – probably better from most rational points of view – than the contorted naturalistic explanations we are often treated to.

Yet we must acknowledge that it is still a claim based more on likelihood and inference, than on certainty and deduction.

samis later remarks:

That [the First Cause is spaceless, timeless and immaterial] does not follow unless we are careful to specify that whatever space, time, or material this “non-extensional something” might be composed of, it is not the space, time, or material which is part of our universe.

In other words, this “non-extensional something” can (and probably does) occupy space, experience time, and is composed of some material, but it is not of the space, time, or material of our universe.

Also a point worth considering. Again, that the universe had a cause does not mean that the universe is all that there is or that the cause has no attributes similar to the attributes of our universe. It is probably fair to say – definitionally so – that the cause of the universe exists outside the universe, but that does not speak directly to other attributes of that cause.

samis continues:

Much less is it given that this First Cause have attributes of intelligence (mind, intention, goals, wants, relationships, affection, etc.). Absent these this First Cause would not be any deity but a mere “thing” or “things”.

This is true up to a point. Most of the attributes projected onto the First Cause flow not from any logical requirement of the First Cause itself, but from our personal beliefs and preferences about what we think that First Cause is, or should be. That is well enough as a philosophical or religious matter, but it is not sustainable as a logical, scientific or deductive matter.

That said, there are some hints of purpose and goal-oriented activity and planning that strike any thoughtful observer of the cosmos. Although not rising to the level of logical deduction, such hints certainly provide reasonable grounds to infer that the cause of the universe has certain attributes.

—–

How Far Can We Go?

It seems that with regard to the observable universe we have, at most, the following situation:

An inference, from observable facts, that the universe had a beginning.
A deduction that the universe had a cause.
A deduction that the cause was not within the universe itself (i.e., existed outside of the universe, both spatially and temporally).
An inference, from observable facts, that the universe has been finely tuned.
A deduction that the cause was capable of producing the universe and of finely tuning the constants.

Most everyone is in agreement up to this point. One additional item that everyone should agree on is the following:

Ultimately, when traced back, there must be a First Cause – that which existed in and of itself, without a beginning.

It is true that whether the universe was caused by the First Cause or by some intermediate cause is entirely open to question. However, at some point, we must regress to a First Cause. We trust everyone is in agreement with this concept of a First Cause.

Identifying the First Cause, unfortunately, is a trickier matter.

The Nature of the First Cause

A number of proposals might be put forward, but let us focus on the two most common.

One proposal on the table is that the First Cause was a purely naturalistic phenomenon: some unidentified, never-before-seen, essentially indescribable, powerful phenomenon, that coincidentally (through sheer luck or sheer repetition over time) managed to produce the finely-tuned universe in which we find ourselves.

A second proposal on the table is that the First Cause is God. The materialist will quickly argue that God is likewise unidentified, never-before-seen, and essentially indescribable. Even if we grant this for purposes of discussion, this argument does not serve to strengthen the materialistic claim of a naturalistic First Cause, but only serves to put the God proposal on at least the same footing.

Yet they are not quite on the same footing.

We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that many individuals have claimed (often at great risk to their reputation and physical safety) to have had a personal encounter with God and have tried, with varying degrees of completeness, to describe God. This holds both for the rare visual experiences, as well as the less-concrete but far more common emotional or spiritual experiences. The materialist may well argue that these individual accounts are disparate, unverified in some cases, and open to challenge. That may well be true. But the fact remains that there is some evidence, independent of the observations of the cosmos itself, of God’s existence, however scattered and fragmentary it may be. It may not be much. But it is more than can be said for the naturalistic proposal.

Furthermore, there is an additional aspect of the cosmos that even ardent materialists acknowledge demands an explanation: that of the finely-tuned constants and the apparent purposeful way in which everything works together to make our very existence possible The universe, to put it bluntly and to borrow a phrase from Richard Dawkins uttered in the biological context, gives “the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Now it may be that the materialist is right, that this apparent design is an illusion, that the existence of our universe is the result of a cosmic – or, shall we say, “extra-cosmic” – lottery. That is one potential explanation, as a matter of sheer logical possibility. But it is lacking in evidence, provides absolutely no intellectual comfort, and is certainly nothing to hang our hat on.

The concept of God at least has the benefit of positing a First Cause with the ability to make the purpose real, to fine tune for a purpose, to have a plan and a goal and an intended outcome; in other words, a First Cause that helps explain the apparent design in the universe, not one that tries to explain it away.

Finally, it is noteworthy – not definitive in any sense of the word, mind you, but noteworthy – that some of the very attributes attributed to God over the ages (tremendous power, vast intelligence, setting a plan in place, showing a personal interest in human affairs), have gained support centuries later in scientific discoveries. If not at the level of deduction, then at least at the level of reasonable inference.

—–

Conclusion

So what are we left with?

The inference that the universe had a beginning does not allow us to identify the First Cause. We cannot say, it seems to this author, as a matter of logic and deduction that the First Cause is God. We cannot even say that the universe was caused by the First Cause, rather than some intermediate cause. Indeed, as a matter of dispassionate objective scientific inquiry and reasoning, we can say but very little about the First Cause.

In that sense, the claim that the First Cause is God must be viewed with some caution. But it must not be viewed with derision. Rather, it should be seriously viewed as a live possibility, very much worthy of consideration.

Indeed, when compared against the materialistic claim, the proposal that the First Cause is God is eminently reasonable – being more consonant with the evidence, with our experience, and with the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from scientific inquiry. While recognizing a significant lack of direct observational evidence on either side of the debate, the objective observer must at least consider the existence of God as a live possibility and, when weighed against the alternative, as the more rational and supportable possibility.

In the final analysis, the individual who holds to the idea that the First Cause is God should not go a bridge too far by attempting to shoehorn the observed attributes of our universe into a definitive, deductive claim for God’s existence. Yet neither should he feel threatened by the materialistic claim, even more lacking as it is in evidence. In the face of the materialistic mindset that so often rules the day, he can approach the debate with a healthy dose of humility, recognizing that his claim of God’s existence is based on inference (and hopefully personal experience), while at the same time feeling confidently grounded in the comparative strength of his position and feeling no need to apologize for the same.

Comments

HeKS @34 Excellent.harry_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

StephenB @33 Absolutely. I got the impression that Eric presented this point as an "aside argument" in the OP, but it seems I was mistaken.Origenes_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

StephenB @33 Exactly.HeKS_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Eric @30
Consider that at one point the universe was thought to be static and eternal. In that case, the universe itself was considered something that always existed, without need for a causative explanation. And the universe has matter, energy, space, time – the various characteristics and parameters we observe around us. Positing that those always existed, indeed that the universe itself was the ultimate unchanging reality, was not problematic logically, and we had no need to argue that a First Cause had to exist outside of space, time and matter. The universe was thought to exist as a fundamental, eternal, physical reality. Now shift forward to the current understanding where we say that the universe had a beginning. Now we need to explain the cause of the observable universe.
Your description here seems to suggest that the universe was uniformly believed to be eternal until scientists discovered it had a beginning, and only then was it decided that we were in need of an explanation for the universe. The problem is that this simply isn't the case. The physical universe was thought to be eternal by those operating under a particular materialistic perspective, but philosophical arguments for the logical necessity of physical reality having a beginning at a finite time in the past and requiring an external cause predated any scientific discovery of the expanding universe. And, of course, these philosophical arguments were further predated by the Judeo-Christian claims that physical reality did have a beginning at a finite time in the past and did have an external cause. Science is literally thousands of years late to this party. That said, where the fact that materialistic scientists and philosophers thought the physical universal existed as a brute eternal fact becomes relevant is in pointing out that it is hypocritical of them to have been willing to accept the infinite temporal existence of the physical universe (which is logically impossible) without demanding any external cause for it but then demanding an external cause for God, being unwilling to accept his eternal non-temporal existence (which is not logically impossible) as a brute fact. Take care, HeKSHeKS_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Eric, I like this discussion and it is evident that you don’t mind tugging away at these ideas. So here goes: In response to Origenes, you wrote,
Now shift forward to the current understanding where we say that the universe had a beginning. Now we need to explain the cause of the observable universe. There is no reason in principle why there cannot be something physical – just like our old static universe – outside of our observable universe or dimension or whatever we want to call it.
Logically, this is possible, but this hypothetic static universe also consists of time/space/ matter and needs explaining for all the same reasons. If it is part of a larger multiverse, (or a product of the multiverse) then the multiverse network becomes the ultimate universe and we are back to where we started. It hardly matters whether we attach the prefix “uni “or “multi” to the ultimate cosmic time/space/continuum. The question remains the same: Does the ultimate time/space/continuum of impersonal forces (that once didn’t exist and now does exist) need a first cause and what must that first cause be like. If the cosmic time/space/matter continuum once didn’t exist and now does exist, there are only two possible candidates for a first cause: It must be either be an immaterial cause or a material cause. (We can rule out abstract principles because ideas and numbers cannot act as causes). Logically, time, space, and matter, however favorably they might be distributed or organized, can play no role in bringing time, space, and matter into existence. Otherwise, they would have had to exist before they existed, which is absurd. It would seem that only a timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause (being) can bring time, space, and matter into existence.StephenB_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson @ 30
Logically, some form of existence must be in play for the cause of the universe. What is the nature of that existence? We might be able to say that the cause existed outside of our current observable parameters of space and time and matter that exist in our universe. That could be accurate.
Whatever it is, the nature of that existence isn't natural according to our understanding of the natural. It obviously transcends the natural. Therefore, it is entirely correct to say that it is supernatural. To then say that that supernatural reality might not be the uncaused first cause, sounds a lot to me like one takes seriously Dawkins' silly question, "Then who created God?"harry_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Eric, I may have misunderstood you.
EA: 6. Ultimately, when traced back, there must be a First Cause – that which existed in and of itself, without a beginning.
I took it that you were referring to the 'ultimate' First Cause. The First Cause of everything — the multiverse if need be —, the ultimate foundation of all of reality. If instead you were referring to the First Cause of our universe, which can be an intermediate cause, then I have misunderstood you and my comment #15 is rather irrelevant.Origenes_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Origenes @15: You make an interesting case, and one worth considering further. May I suggest, however, that it is not quite as water-tight as we might initially think. Consider that at one point the universe was thought to be static and eternal. In that case, the universe itself was considered something that always existed, without need for a causative explanation. And the universe has matter, energy, space, time – the various characteristics and parameters we observe around us. Positing that those always existed, indeed that the universe itself was the ultimate unchanging reality, was not problematic logically, and we had no need to argue that a First Cause had to exist outside of space, time and matter. The universe was thought to exist as a fundamental, eternal, physical reality. Now shift forward to the current understanding where we say that the universe had a beginning. Now we need to explain the cause of the observable universe. There is no reason in principle why there cannot be something physical – just like our old static universe – outside of our observable universe or dimension or whatever we want to call it. Yes, we can say that the cause of our universe had to exist outside of our universe. That is one of the deductions we can make by force of logic, and up to that point we are on solid ground. We might be tempted to go one step further and argue that the cause had to exist outside of space and time and matter as well. Yet – and here we must pay very close attention because it is critical to understand the chain of thinking – such a claim rests upon and is conditioned upon the proposition that these very parameters (space, time and matter) exist only in our universe. But that is only because we have defined them as such. ----- Logically, some form of existence must be in play for the cause of the universe. What is the nature of that existence? We might be able to say that the cause existed outside of our current observable parameters of space and time and matter that exist in our universe. That could be accurate. But that is a more careful and nuanced claim than the ones typically put forward.Eric Anderson_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

HeKS @8:
As such, we must conclude that the First Cause was non-extensional, and therefore did not exist within any external dimension of time or space.
This may indeed be a reasonable conclusion. I would just point out that it is more related to the First Cause, than the cause of the universe. Per my comments to Querius and harry @11-12, the latter claim would run the risk of appealing to circular definitions.
He can attack the logic of the argument if he likes, but to simply offer some physical alternative to the non-physical First Cause necessitated by the argument is to be non-responsive to the argument.
Fair enough. I agree that vague appeals to some unidentified materialistic cause are unpersuasive. As between the alternatives, I would not choose the materialistic explanation. I remain more cautious, however, about defining the First Cause in terms of specific parameters – particularly if those parameters are simply negations of whatever parameters we have defined for the “physical” universe.
And so the argument educates “science” by informing it that we are forced to conclude that there was some point at which there was either a) absolutely nothing at all or b) some non-extensional reality with the characteristics described in my OP, and logic forces us to conclude that it was (b).
I think you make a good point and a strong case, with perhaps the cautionary caveats I am trying to flesh out a bit.
P.S. Just to be clear, if you sense any antagonism in my tone, it is not remotely directed at you. It is entirely a result of the frivolity of sean samis’ arguments in combination with his arrogant demeanor in the comment thread to my OP. If only I had more time on my hands.
No need to apologize. I appreciate your comments and additional clarifications and certainly have not taken offense.Eric Anderson_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @7: Thanks for bringing it down a notch.
The fact that a human endeavour, mathematics, needs these dimensions to balance equations is not physical proof these dimensions exist . . .
Agreed.
. . . but they are rational proofs, which, I am sorry to say, is several giant steps of proof beyond philosophising.
I'm not sure where your negative accusations of philosophizing come in. Even assuming mathematics has "proved" extra dimensions beyond our known universe, it doesn't help answer the question of what the cause of the universe is. Nor does it help answer the question of the First Cause. Yet there are a few things we can say, based on a rational analysis of the situation. The OP contains very modest claims. Claims based upon the few things that can be deduced and the few things that can be reasonably inferred. I have even called upon those who posit God as the cause of the universe or as the First Cause to exercise some caution in that claim, due to the lack of empirical evidence or deductive necessity. If you had read the OP with some measure of objectivity, rather than coming in here with guns blazing, it would seems that you would be applauding my cautionary tone, my specific call to reign in the religion and the philosophy, rather than making abusive accusations of "philosophizing."
I’m sorry if my tone sounds arrogant. I lay no claim to superior knowledge, indeed most of the contributors here, appear far more knowledgeable, about far more subjects than I do. However the, ‘extraordinary claims, demand extraordinary evidence’, is justified here, and I make no apologies for that.
One might point out that the issues we are discussing are more related to logic and first principles of reason, than observational evidence, given the acknowledged paucity of the latter. Even so, I am certainly happy to accept the "extraordinary claims, demand extraordinary evidence" concept. Presumably you are willing to apply this principle to the extraordinary naturalistic claims about the origin of the universe?Eric Anderson_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

JAD,
Sagan thought it was at least possible. He thought it was possible we lived in an oscillating universe that has gone through an infinite number of cycles, each cycle beginning with a new Big Bang which then ultimately collapses on itself. However that idea has since been discredited. It is now known that the universe is expanding too quickly to ever collapse back on itself. So, we do not live in an oscillating universe.
That's interesting. I didn't know that Sagan had written on the issue of infinite regress.daveS_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

To follow up on my comment @ #19: Many of our interlocutors here try to use the “so many religions” canard as an objection against theism. But the basic forms of religious theism agree on a fundamental metaphysical level when it comes to the origin of the universe, life, mind and consciousness. Indeed, one doesn’t need to be religious, like the late Anthony Flew, to accept theism as the best explanation why the world exists and why it exists as it does. Furthermore, notice the ontological demarcation between basic theism and every other world view. Only theism does not rely on an infinite regress to explain our existence. At least I can’t think of another worldview that doesn’t require an infinite regress… can you?john_a_designer_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

..any more than I need to prove that a moving train of box cars needs an engine to move them.StephenB_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @3
You cannot prove a first cause, just as I cannot disprove one. However the burden of proof is upon the, ‘extraordinary claim’. (Marcello Truzzi.)
That is pure, unadulterated nonsense. I don't need to prove that a causal chain needs a first cause any more than I need to prove that a train of moving train of box cars needs an engine to move them. Every reasonable person already knows that. You, on the other hand, do need to prove that a chain of box cars can move even when there is no engine to do the moving. It is your claim that is extraordinary.StephenB_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

PS: As parts of that onward discussion, we could highlight:
1 --> absent responsible, rational freedom, we cannot trust ourselves to argue reasonably. 2 --> such responsible, rational freedom allows us to be self-moved initiating actors, significantly free and rational, enconscienced agents. 3 --> In that context, we see abundant cases -- past a trillion -- of designs of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] and in every observed case the cause is such a designing agent as is being discussed. 4 --> We have no good reason to infer we exhaoust the possible cases of such designers. 5 --> Nor can we insist that design is a result of purely material action, indeed the evidence in hand points otherwise. For example, here is Reppert:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
6 --> So we have strong reason to infer from FSCO/I and/or similar signs to design working by art. Here, I cite again Plato, earlier in The Laws Bk X:
Ath. . . . we have . . . lighted on a strange doctrine. Cle. What doctrine do you mean? Ath. The wisest of all doctrines, in the opinion of many. Cle. I wish that you would speak plainer. Ath. The doctrine that all things do become, have become, and will become, some by nature, some by art, and some by chance. Cle. Is not that true? Ath. Well, philosophers are probably right; at any rate we may as well follow in their track, and examine what is the meaning of them and their disciples. Cle. By all means. Ath. They say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art, which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . . fire and water, and earth and air, all exist by nature and chance . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them . . . After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [--> evolutionary materialism is ancient] . . . . Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [i.e. mind], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? . . . . if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise . . .
7 --> In short since Plato 2360 years ago near enough, it has been understood that we may contrast blind natural mechanism of necessity and/or blind chance with the ART-ificial. (The common rhetorical gambit to try to pin down to "natural vs supernatural" is question-begging, the proper contrast is nature working by chance and necessity vs the ART-ificial, working by design. When it comes form those who are at the top of the academic game, it is grossly irresponsible, at best and willfully deceitful at worst.) 8 --> So, we may freely infer to design on FSCO/I or the like, as tested, reliable inductive signs. 9 --> One of those signs is that often designed complex systems exhibit fine-tuning, close adaptation and/or adjustment of parts to work together when properly organised. This is obvious with concrete entities such as vehicles or electronic circuits, it also applies to text in writing, and to complex frames of argument or thought, i.e. to abstract entities, which may be the plans so to speak for concrete things. In short, functionally specific complex information is designed -- where we may use a threshold of 500 - 1,000 bits. 10 --> As Sir Fred Hoyle and many others have had to highlight, the physics and parameters of our observed cosmos set us to a deeply isolated operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, aqueous medium, protein using, cell based life on terrestrial planets. 11 --> This is a sign that points to design of our cosmos by a highly intelligent and powerful, deeply knowledgeable agent or set of such agents. 12 --> Multiply this by the logic of being and non-being, and we see that at the root of our world, even through a multiverse speculation, is a required necessary being of ensouled order. 13 --> This becomes particularly evident when we see the need to account for ourselves as responsibly free intelligences of ensouled/ minded/ agent order, who are morally governed. There must be a world root IS capable of grounding OUGHT.
The issue, is serious candidates to meet these requisites. At world root level, after centuries of debates, there is but one serious candidate, the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great [= supreme] being, worthy of ultimate loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. If you doubt this, simply put up a candidate to face comparative difficulties: _____________________ (Prediction, on long experience, no such serious alternative will be forthcoming.)kairosfocus_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Before that exchange with Carnap, Einstein was denied a Nobel prize for relativity largely because of a debate he had with another philosopher over basically the same line of thought. i.e. over 'The Now' of the mind:
Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time - Wednesday 24 June 2015 Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but. ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’ It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow. As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact. ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’ The night would only get worse. ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’ Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity. Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time. So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities. Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place. ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them ... unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’ In a theoretical nutshell this expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,, Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory and with it the possibility of a Bergsonian universe of indeterminacy and change. God did, it seems, play dice with the universe, contra to Einstein’s famous aphorism. Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more. Canales quotes the literary critic Andre Rousseaux, writing at the time of Bergson’s death. ‘The Bergson revolution will be doubled by a scientific revolution that, on its own, would have demanded the philosophical revolution that Bergson led, even if he had not done it.’ Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568 Einstein, Bergson, and the Experiment that Failed: Intellectual Cooperation at the League of Nations! - Jimena Canales page 1177 Excerpt: Bergson temporarily had the last word during their meeting at Société française de philosophie. His intervention negatively affected Einstein’s Nobel Prize, which was given “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect” and not for relativity. The reasons behind this decision, as stated in the prize’s presentation speech, were related to Bergson’s intervention: “Most discussion [of Einstein’s work] centers on his Theory of Relativity. This pertains to epistemology and has therefore been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles. It will be no secret that the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has challenged this theory, while other philosophers have acclaimed it wholeheartedly.”51 For a moment, their debate dragged matters of time out of the solid terrain of “matters of fact” and into the shaky ground of “matters of concern.”52 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3210598/canales-Einstein,%20Bergson%20and%20the%20Experiment%20that%20Failed%282%29.pdf?sequence=2 Einstein vs. "The Now" of Philosophers and Quantum Mechanics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1129789497033982/?type=2&theater
As alluded to in the preceding video, the statement from Einstein to Carnap on the train, '"The experience of 'the now' cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement’, was an interesting statement for Einstein to make to the philosopher since 'the now of the mind' has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, undermined the space-time of Einstein's General Relativity as to being the absolute frame of reference for reality.
LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness - May 27, 2015 Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler's experiment then asks - at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips. The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler's original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light. "Quantum physics' predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness," said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html
Moreover, in trying to ascertain what are the characteristics the Mind that has brought, and continually brings, material reality into existence, it is important to note that a photon, while it is in its uncollapsed state, is mathematically defined as being in an infinite dimensional state. Moreover, it is in an infinite dimensional state that requires an infinite amount of information to define properly:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1127450170601248/?type=2&theater
i.e. Whatever, or more precisely, Whomever is collapsing the infinite dimensional-infinite information photon to a single bit state must possess infinite knowledge and also be infinitely present! Which certainly sounds like almighty God to me!
Job 38:19-20 “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?”
Supplemental quotes:
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics. “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” (48:35 minute mark) “In the beginning was the Word” John 1:1 (49:54 minute mark) Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2984
Verse:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

In ascertaining what brought the universe, i.e. space-time matter-energy, into being it is interesting to focus on the characteristics of the two entities that space-time matter-energy have utterly failed to explain the origin of. Namely, as everybody who has been around ID for any amount of time knows, matter-energy space-time have utterly failed to explain the origin of both information and of mind. Moreover, both information and mind have the characteristic of being timeless and both also have the characteristic of not being constrained by space. For instance, Berlinski comments on the timeless-spaceless characteristic of mathematical information in the following excerpt:
An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
And although information can be represented by a material medium, information is still its own independent entity that is 'real' and that is not reducible to, or 'emergent' from, a material medium as Darwinists falsely presuppose. That information is real and produces real effects in the material world is highlighted by George Ellis in the following article.
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: page 5: A: Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics, for example state vector preparation, where top-down constraints allow non-unitary behaviour at the lower levels. It may well play a key role in the quantum measurement problem (the dual of state vector preparation) [5]. One can bear in mind here that wherever equivalence classes of entities play a key role, such as in Crutchfield’s computational mechanics [29], this is an indication that top-down causation is at play. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf
Here are a few more quotes along the same line:
"Those devices (computers) can yield only approximations to a structure (of information) that has a deep and "computer independent" existence of its own." - Roger Penrose - The Emperor's New Mind - Pg 147 “The mechanical brain does not secrete thought “as the liver does bile,” as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day. “ Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - (Cybernetics, 2nd edition, p.132)
That information is a real entity that produces real effects in the world is made evident by modern technology. Mathematical and/or logical information 'underlies virtually all of our technology today"
Describing Nature With Math By Peter Tyson - Nov. 2011 Excerpt: Mathematics underlies virtually all of our technology today. James Maxwell's four equations summarizing electromagnetism led directly to radio and all other forms of telecommunication. E = mc2 led directly to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The equations of quantum mechanics made possible everything from transistors and semiconductors to electron microscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. Indeed, many of the technologies you and I enjoy every day simply would not work without mathematics. When you do a Google search, you're relying on 19th-century algebra, on which the search engine's algorithms are based. When you watch a movie, you may well be seeing mountains and other natural features that, while appearing as real as rock, arise entirely from mathematical models. When you play your iPod, you're hearing a mathematical recreation of music that is stored digitally; your cell phone does the same in real time. "When you listen to a mobile phone, you're not actually hearing the voice of the person speaking," Devlin told me. "You're hearing a mathematical recreation of that voice. That voice is reduced to mathematics." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/describing-nature-math.html
That information can be represented by a material medium, but is not reducible to material medium, is also made self-evident by the fact that the same exact information can be represented by a practically unlimited set of material substrates, (CDs, DVDs, Floppy Disks, RAM, Magnetic Tape, etc.. etc..), and yet the meaning and/or content of the information never changes no matter which type of material substrate the information may be encoded on.
“In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Intelligent design: Why can't biological information originate through a materialistic process? - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8
The same timeless-spaceless characteristics found for information are also found for mind. For instance, although the material particulars of my brain, and body, have certainly changed many times over since I was born, "I" have stayed the same. That is to say, "I" have a persistence of self identity that simply is not reducible to any material substrate. In fact, there are many characteristics of mind that simply are not reducible to any material substrate:
How Consciousness Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace - video - Sept. 2015 (5 attributes of mind that are distinct from the material brain therefore, via the law of identity, the mind is not the same thing as the material brain) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko
That mind has a timeless/spaceless characteristic to it, that is not reducible to matter and/or energy, is also highlighted by an infamous debate that Einstein had with philosophers. (A debate which, due to advances in quantum mechanics, Einstein ultimately lost). Einstein was once asked (by a philosopher):
"Can physics demonstrate the existence of 'the now' in order to make the notion of 'now' into a scientifically valid term?"
Einstein's answer was categorical, he said:
"The experience of 'the now' cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics."
Quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video.
Stanley L. Jaki: "The Mind and Its Now" https://vimeo.com/10588094
Here is an article on the exchange between Einstein and the philosopher:
The Mind and Its Now - May 22, 2008 - By Stanley L. Jaki Excerpt: ,,, Rudolf Carnap, and the only one among them who was bothered with the mind's experience of its now. His concern for this is noteworthy because he went about it in the wrong way. He thought that physics was the only sound way to know and to know anything. It was therefore only logical on his part that he should approach, we are around 1935, Albert Einstein, the greatest physicist of the day, with the question whether it was possible to turn the experience of the now into a scientific knowledge. Such knowledge must of course be verified with measurement. We do not have the exact record of Carnap's conversation with Einstein whom he went to visit in Princeton, at eighteen hours by train at that time from Chicago. But from Einstein's reply which Carnap jotted down later, it is safe to assume that Carnap reasoned with him as outlined above. Einstein's answer was categorical: The experience of the now cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement. It can never be part of physics. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
What is meant by 'the Now' can be read in full context in the following article:
The Mind and Its Now - Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind's baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind's ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
bornagain77_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

F/N: Pardon, a clip from Plato in The Laws, Bk X, in which he discusses first causes [note plural] and first cause of the cosmos [note distinction]:
[Athenian Stranger]. Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators; and I would have you examine their arguments with the utmost care, for their impiety is a very serious matter; they not only make a bad and mistaken use of argument, but they lead away the minds of others: that is my opinion of them. Cle. You are right; but I should like to know how this happens. Ath. I fear that the argument may seem singular. Cle. Do not hesitate, Stranger; I see that you are afraid of such a discussion carrying you beyond the limits of legislation. But if there be no other way of showing our agreement in the belief that there are Gods, of whom the law is said now to approve, let us take this way, my good sir. Ath. Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions; they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul’s kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word “nature” wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
So, Plato suggests that we should distinguish first causes --
(minded, ensouled, self-moved reflexive entities in effect that show freedom to initiate chains of events, as when I key certain keys in patters to compose this post . . . if such is driven and wholly controlledby chance and/or mechanical necessity it undermines argument through self referentiality)
. . . from the first cause of the cosmos in our discussion. I think this will allow us to proceed more effectively. KFkairosfocus_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

In the modern west the debate for the past two centuries has centered around two world view. On one hand, there is naturalism; on the other, there is theism. Naturalism, indeed as well as any other world view other than theism, leads to an infinite regress of causes (“turtles all the way down.”) For example, the late Cornell university astronomer Carl Sagan who took the side of naturalism over theism, or as he described it, between science and religion included in his book Broca’s Brain, a chapter titled, “A Sunday Sermon,” where he appears to vacillate about the relationship of science and religion. At times he seems to be sounding a conciliatory note, but then, at other times, he’s confrontational. For example, he writes, “A universe that is infinitely old and a God who is infinitely old are, I think, equally deep mysteries.” However, a few pages earlier he praises a book by Cornell universities’ founder and president, Andrew Dickson White, entitled, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Despite Sagan’s enthusiastic endorsement, White’s book has almost universally been discredited by historians of science as being more an anti-religious propaganda piece rather than a work of serious scholarship. Most historians of science reject the so-called warfare thesis put forth in White’s book as a myth. The relationship between science and the Christian faith is much more complicated and nuanced than White implies. Sagan, however, appears to uncritically swallow White’s thesis hook-line-and-sinker. As a Christian-theist, who has thought long and deeply about the basic assumptions underlying my world view, I don’t think Sagan, along with other likeminded naturalist’s, really understand the fundamental differences between the two world views. They are not really equal. Again, the naturalistic worldview that Sagan seemed to prefer, requires an infinite regress of causes. However, is such an infinite regress something that is scientifically provable? Is it even possible? Sagan thought it was at least possible. He thought it was possible we lived in an oscillating universe that has gone through an infinite number of cycles, each cycle beginning with a new Big Bang which then ultimately collapses on itself. However that idea has since been discredited. It is now known that the universe is expanding too quickly to ever collapse back on itself. So, we do not live in an oscillating universe. However, Sagan also thought that mathematics was on his side. He writes,
Humans seem to have a natural abhorrence of an infinite regression of causes, and this distaste is at the root of the most famous and most effective demonstrations of the existence of God by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. But these thinkers lived before the infinite series was a mathematical commonplace. If the differential and integral calculus or transfinite arithmetic had been invented in Greece in the fifth century B.C., and not subsequently suppressed, the history of religion in the West might have been very different-or at any rate we would have seen less of the pretension that theological doctrine can be convincingly demonstrated by rational argument to those who reject alleged divine revelation, as Aquinas attempted in the Summa Contra Gentiles.(p.335)
The famous German mathematician David Hilbert would have disagreed. He wrote, “The in?nite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought… The role that remains for the in?nite to play is solely that of an idea.” So, according to Hilbert an infinite sequence of real causes does not exist. Of course, other mathematicians would disagree. But the fact that mathematicians disagree about the existence of actual infinities cast doubt on the idea that the theological arguments would have been easily undermined. Indeed one could just as well argue that it would have had little effect over the status quo. It certainly doesn’t provide the knockout argument that Sagan thought it would. But there is more bad news for Sagan… One of the inventors of differential and integral calculus, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, also had problems with an infinite regress. However, his argument wasn’t really mathematical but philosophical. According to Leibniz:
For a sufficient reason for existence cannot be found merely in any one individual thing or even in the whole aggregate and series of things. Let us imagine the book on the Elements of Geometry to have been eternal, one copy always being made from another; then it is clear that though we can give a reason for the present book based on the preceding book from which it was copied, we can never arrive at a complete reason, no matter how many books we may assume in the past, for one can always wonder why such books should have existed at all times; why there should be books at all, and why they should be written in this way. What is true of books is true also of the different states of the world; every subsequent state is somehow copied from the preceding one (although according to certain laws of change). No matter how far we may have gone back to earlier states, therefore, we will never discover in them a full reason why there should be a world at all, and why it should be such as it is.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters, ed. by Leroy E. Loemker (Kluwer Academic, 1989); p. 486. Basically, Leibniz’s argument is that with an infinite regress you never reach the ultimate explanation. Of course, the naturalist could still argue that maybe there is no ultimate explanation. Bertrand Russell conceded as much in his 1948 BBC radio debate with Fr. Fredrick Copleston about the existence of God. However, even if that could be proven as true (which it can’t) it nevertheless has dire consequences, which we have argued about on other threads, when we begin to consider meaning and morals. (Briefly, if God is not the ultimate explanation for our existence then there is no kind of ultimate explanation in the area of meaning and morals.)john_a_designer_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

F/N: The selectively hyperskeptical rhetorical gambit that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is little more than an announcement of intent to beg the question in favour of one's present views and sense of what is plausible -- of course, coloured by those views. Instead, a more correct approach is:
~~extraordinary~~ claims require ~~extraordinary evidence~~ [--> cogent, adequate evidence as with claims of similar type]
Simon Greenleaf, a founding father of the modern theory of evidence in anglophone jurisprudence, was far sounder:
Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [--> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved. By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]
KFkairosfocus_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson @12
But it is definitional exercise and does not help us get to a substantive answer about the cause itself.
What would qualify as a substantive answer about the cause itself? What could help us to get to such an answer?Dionisio_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

F/N: I cross-post from the other thread (bearing in mind this longstanding post at UD): Last para of OP in that thread is telling. HeKS speaks:
. . . Coyne’s responses to the Fine-Tuning argument are no more compelling than his attempted rebuttal of the First-Cause argument and they have been answered in depth by others (see, for example, almost any debate with William Lane Craig). Coyne tries to downplay what we do know scientifically about the physical requirements for life in an attempt to weaken the force of the argument, wrongly identifies it as an argument from ignorance when it is actually a positive argument for design based on our universal experience of cause and effect and the principles by which we all consistently infer design, and he finally makes appeal to the possibility of a multiverse, but all of these are merely attempts to block a conclusion of theistic design that can be held with 100% certainty. [ --> no inductive inference is 100% certain, this is selective hyperskepticism, and given local isolation of our cosmos' physics setting up conditions for life, multiverse does not blunt the inference] Even if they were successful (and there’s no good reason to think they are), they would do nothing to change the fact that, based on what we do know at this point in time, theistic design is currently the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for complex intelligent life, and by a large margin at that. [--> inference to best explanation on reliable sign]
This brings out the force of the issue of inferring design on reliable sign. Design is a familiar observed phenomenon, and it is replete with empirically reliable indicia. For instance, functionally specific complex organisation of components and associated information that results in a locally isolated operating point. (Thus, fine tuning, to set a system to that point.) Nor is it a serious objection to say that the designs we observe are done by humans. First, false, beaver dams show design adapted to situation (as has long since been argued here at UD). Second, we are contingent and there is no good reason to infer that we exhaust potential designers. Nor is there a good non-question begging reason to a priori insist that we cannot infer design on signs in circumstances that may point to an incorporeal being or mind. (In fact, there is no good reason to hold that our own minds are only manifestations of processing in the brain's neural networks, not least, such struggles to the point of futility in explaining responsible, rational freedom. Without which, freedom to undertake responsible reasoned argument is utterly undermined.) There are in fact abundant, even notorious, signs of cosmological design, that get stronger and stronger as the decades roll by. Already, at the turn of the 1980's, they were so strong that leading astrophysicist and lifelong agnostic, Sir Fred Hoyle, observed regarding the connecting block Carbon Atom:
>>From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]>> also, in the same talk: >>The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn't give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. [ --> 20^200 = 1.6 * 10^260] This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem - the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn't convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes - by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix. >> and again: >>I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the [--> nuclear synthesis] consequences they produce within stars. ["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]>>
That, and much more, is what needs to be addressed. KFkairosfocus_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

On the nature of the First Cause. The First Cause is fundamental, which means that it does not consist of parts. If the First Cause consists of parts, then those parts are fundamental to the first cause — which is incoherent. Therefore, (1) The First Cause is one and indivisible. The First Cause is fundamental, which means that it cannot be encapsulated by a larger context of space, time and laws. If something encapsulates and directs the First Cause, then something is fundamental to the First Cause — which is incoherent. Therefore, (2) The First Cause is outside time and space. (3) A material thing consists of parts and is encapsulated by a context of time, space and laws. Therefore, (4) The First Cause is immaterial.Origenes_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

rvb8: Still spouting the same old tired atheist drivel. Please up your game so I don't completely waste my time reading your comments. Sebestyen@13: Excellent points. The universe arising on its own accord out of nothing is an "extraordinary claim" without any extraordinary evidence to support it, and certainly no empirical evidence. It is an atheist creation myth disguised as science.Truth Will Set You Free_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

However the burden of proof is upon the, ‘extraordinary claim’.
All possible explanations for the big bang are extraordinary in their own ways. Of course you can be convinced that one of them is 'more extraordinary' than the other and that you can then shift the burden of proof, but you're really just fooling yourself. SebestyenSebestyen_{July 11, 2016
July
07
Jul
11
11
2016
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

harry @10: Thanks for your comments. I think you are driving in a similar vein as Querius and you make a good case. However, the problem still remains that I described to Querius @11, and it applies to the concepts of time and energy as well. As long as we define each of these parameters (space, time, matter, energy) as existing only within the context of the universe, then obviously whatever cause caused the universe must exist outside of those parameters. But it is definitional exercise and does not help us get to a substantive answer about the cause itself. ----- Again, please note, in the immediate context I am talking about the cause of the universe, not the First Cause. Some people want to conclude those must be identical, but it is important to recognize that the conclusion is based on circular definitions. It might be true that that cause of the universe is the First Cause, but it cannot be deduced. That is the point.Eric Anderson_{July 10, 2016
July
07
Jul
10
10
2016
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

Querius: Good thoughts. If we define the universe as everything that exists, then, yes, I think your conclusions hold. On the other hand, if we define the universe as everything that we can see, or everything we can observe, or everything that we currently are able to ascertain, then the possibility remains open that something else existed before the universe. Indeed, already in positing a First Cause we are positing that something existed prior to the universe. And that something existed, by definition, outside of the universe. I presume you agree up to this point. Next, we could go on to claim that this something existed outside of "space and time," because space and time only exist in the context of the universe. But that is essentially a circular argument. Specifically, if we define "space" and "time" as coming into existence at the origin of the universe (or as existing only in the context of the universe) then -- by definition -- space and time did not exist prior to the universe. But that is more of a semantic exercise, than a logical or an empirical one. After all, the cause of the universe existed prior to the universe. Everyone agrees on that point. And we can describe this existence however we want: another dimension, another reality, another state of being, whatever. But it existed in some fashion. Saying that the cause of the universe existed outside of space and time, while at the same time defining "space" and "time" as only existing within the universe, may very well be true as a tautological matter, but it is trivially so and doesn't help address the question substantively. Both materialists and theists hold that what came into being as the "universe" is not all that there is. There is some other dimension, some other reality, some other state of being that existed outside of and prior to the universe. In other words, both models must by force of logic conclude that there was something that existed prior to the existence of the universe. And both models struggle mightily to describe how or what or in what state that cause existed. There is little to distinguish one model from the other, or to favor one model over the other, up to this point. Unless we engage in circular definitions, the fact that the universe had a beginning does not allow us to conclude, by force of deduction, that either (a) the cause was the First Cause, or (b) that the First Cause was God. The real question boils down to an inference of which proposed cause is more rational and more consonant with the evidence.Eric Anderson_{July 10, 2016
July
07
Jul
10
10
2016
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

It is all very simple to me. Events have causes. Time, space, matter and energy came into being with the Big Bang; its cause was some reality that is not confined to space and time since they didn't exist yet. Its cause couldn't have been any kind of natural reality because natural events require matter and energy which didn't exist yet. Natural events take place in time, no matter how infinitesimally small the amount of time that is required for them to occur may be. Something must change for an event to have taken place. Change takes time. No natural event can take place outside of time. So the Big Bang must have been a supernatural event, since natural events only take place in time, which didn't exist yet. If one claims pre-Big Bang matter in some form existed eternally, it still could never have brought forth the Big Bang because time didn't exist yet. That matter would have remained eternally the same without any time in which a change in that matter could take place. This is the reason theories of pre-Big Bang matter are faulty -- time began with the Big Bang before which no natural event could have taken place, including the Big Bang. (Not to mention the dubious nature of the notion that matter existed without any space in which to exist. ;o) The reality that is not confined to space and time that was the cause of the necessarily supernatural event that was the Big Bang, is what is commonly referred to as God. That this reality is a "who" and not a "what" is made evident by the knowledge that was required for the fine-tuning of the Universe for life and the fact that the physical dimension of life is digital informaton-based nanotechnology the functional complexity of which is light years beyond anything modern science knows how to build from scratch. Technology, by definition, is the application of knowledge for a purpose. Only intelligent agents apply knowledge. The primary reality is a "Who," the uncaused first cause, Who unsurprisingly identified Himself as "I AM WHO AM."harry_{July 10, 2016
July
07
Jul
10
10
2016
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

There's pretty much of a scientific consensus that the universe had a beginning. Since every effect that we study in science has a cause, the universe would also have a cause, otherwise causeless effects would obviate scientific inquiry. The universe includes space-time, dark matter, dark-energy, virtual particles, and likely other stuff and their interactions and deformations. Extrapolating these in reverse leaves us with Nothing. No natural laws, no "empty" space. Simply non-existence. The cause for the universe cannot have been due to quantum fluctuations or the magic of Vast Amounts of Time because Time came into existence with the "Big Bang." First there was Nothing, then there was Everything, and there was a cause. This would of necessity have to have been the First Cause for our universe because you would otherwise need to sneak in Time to have a succession of causes, and Time doesn't exist yet. (Note that postulating a universe-spawning multiverse is logically identical with a giant, trans-dimensional cosmic turtle that lays eggs that become universes.) From Quantum Physics, we know that the fundamental nature of mass-energy is Information (phi). Before it's observed, Information doesn't have any mass or volume, so it's an excellent candidate for something that can be observed.
In the beginning was the Word (Logos in Greek), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. -John 1:1-5, KJV
-QQuerius_{July 10, 2016
July
07
Jul
10
10
2016
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

Hi Eric, I definitely look forward to reading the rest of your article. Just to offer some clarification, though, I wasn't intending to comment on what you might go on to say in the part of the article I didn't read (you may very well agree with everything I'm about to say). Rather, I was commenting on the lack of validity in Sean Samis' response to the issues addressed in my OP. As you say in your article:
In his comments, samis urges caution in drawing any conclusion from the Big Bang about deity’s existence or involvement.
Any attempt to counter the argument described in my OP by appealing to the possibility of something like a mulitverse or any other higher level spacetime or material state preceding the Big Bang is doomed to failure because the argument says nothing about the Big Bang in particular. The argument is that anything that is extended in time and/or space, which includes both time and space themselves, cannot have existed infinitely into the past. As such, we must conclude that the First Cause was non-extensional, and therefore did not exist within any external dimension of time or space. Sean's appeals to the idea that the First Cause must have just been some other "thing" made of "stuff", just not stuff from our universe, utterly fails to respond to the argument. The logic of the argument eliminates the possibility of the suggestions he puts forth as a matter of logical necessity. He can attack the logic of the argument if he likes, but to simply offer some physical alternative to the non-physical First Cause necessitated by the argument is to be non-responsive to the argument. And then we come to this other direct statement from sean samis:
The proper response to the creation ex nihilo argument is that science does not believe or claim that our universe was created ex nihilo. The argument is a red herring.
The fact that Sean doesn't understand the argument in my OP does not mean that the argument (or any part of the argument) is a red herring. I'm not sure I even know what he thinks "the creation ex nihilo argument" is, since there is no such argument that I'm aware of. As I explained in my OP (and as I'm sure you're aware), "creation ex nihilo" is merely a statement about the method of creation God used by God and just says that he did not create using some pre-existing matter but actually produced the matter out of which physical reality is made. It is not some kind of self-contained argument about God's existence. Furthermore, the issue is not whether or not "science" claims that the universe was created ex nihilo. Scientists are highly prone to saying philosophically stupid things, and so they will appeal to an infinite multiverse, or to some infinitely existing physical state prior to some cosmic inflationary period that was suddenly galvanized into action to explode and create the universe as we now have it. But as I've said above, these require some extensional reality existing infinitely into the past, which is simply not possible. And so the argument educates "science" by informing it that we are forced to conclude that there was some point at which there was either a) absolutely nothing at all or b) some non-extensional reality with the characteristics described in my OP, and logic forces us to conclude that it was (b). There seems to be a certain irony in sean samis talking about red herrings. P.S. Just to be clear, if you sense any antagonism in my tone, it is not remotely directed at you. It is entirely a result of the frivolity of sean samis' arguments in combination with his arrogant demeanor in the comment thread to my OP. If only I had more time on my hands.HeKS_{July 10, 2016
July
07
Jul
10
10
2016
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply