Beginning Of The Universe Evidence Of God's Existence

[Neon Genesis]

I agree - sorry for extending the tangent. I just saw a place where I actually understood what you guys were talking about. All this physics and potential/actual infinites makes my head swim

 

But just for the record: I did have a reply for LNC about morality. I will just refrain from posting it

 

And as a suggestion, perhaps it would be helpful to reframe the discussion. It seems as though it might help cut off some of the tangents if there is a direction to the debate.

Maybe we could splinter off the discussion about morality into a separate thread if it's possible?

[Asimov]

Yet, you are making the assumption that infinite future time will actualize, which you cannot assume, so therefore, the best that we can say is that we are at a finite point at this time. So, you have no real case for infinite time other than by faith.

 

No, I'm trying to point out the possibilities and stating that we can't rule it out. I'll concede that you may well be right that the universe has a finite future and a finite past, because we don't really know.

 

Aquinas argued that an actual infinite multitude would be differentiated by numbers and that there are no infinite numbers (meaning natural numbers).

 

Well Aquinas predates set theory, so I don't see your point.

 

First, each day is an effect of a prior series of concatenated causes. If time were past-eternal, then yesterday would have had the same number of causes than today. This day 100 years ago would have had the same number of causes as today. This leads to one absurdity. Second, considering the rotation of the planets around the Sun, Jupiter completes 2.5 rotations for every one that Saturn completes, yet given infinite time, they would have completed the same number of rotations. Jupiter should have completed infinitely more rotations in infinite time, yet they both have completed an infinite number of rotations, so some how they are actually even. Where was that line crossed making them even? Even though they are rotating at different rates they still maintain the same number of ultimate rotations.

 

You're confusing the distinguishing aspects of "more" in regards to cardinality and "more" in regards to sets. The rotations of Jupiter and Saturn are infinite and have the same cardinality, but both are subsets of the total amount of rotations between the two planets, which creates a superset.

 

See, you run into logical contradictions and absurdities (an infinite number of them) given infinite time.

 

Except you don't. It might seem counterintuitive if you're trying to apply the improper terms to transfinite sets, but it's not and that's why we have set theory.

 

 

I think you are using word games to try to get out of the logical problem rather than addressing the logical absurdity of the illustration. Signal velocity has nothing to do with the real problem and works against your argument just as much as you think it works for you. It sets the same bounds on your proof of past-eternal time. Second, you also deny infinite regression with your second objection as you would have to argue that there can be only one infinite regression happening simultaneously. The fact that these people exist simultaneously does not get you out of the logical absurdity presented by the illustration

 

Signal velocity does present an issue with your analogy, but your analogy isn't proper anyways since I'm not saying there was any beginning to the infinite chain of events like in your analogy in which it began when you requested the money.

 

 

 

I think you overstate your case. Bell’s Theorem states that hidden variable interpretations are allowed, but that is far from concluding that there are no hidden variables that would allow for causal relationship.

 

Unless you're arguing for new physics that haven't been discovered yet, I think I'll stick with the consensus among physicists that Bell's Theorem proves that there are no hidden variables until shown otherwise.

 

Are you now saying that events and things are the same? You seem to be arguing both sides of the case here.

 

No, I'm saying that they are complementary.

 

In spite of its old age, the Second Law of Thermodynamics “is alive and kicking,” says

Max Tegmark, check it out for yourself.

 

And I've never said that it isn't. Depending on which multiverse theory you look at, there are different concepts and they all readily accept that where WE exist, we are bound by certain laws of physics. That doesn't mean that these physical laws necessarily apply to all other universes.

[Asimov]

I agree - sorry for extending the tangent. I just saw a place where I actually understood what you guys were talking about. All this physics and potential/actual infinites makes my head swim

 

But just for the record: I did have a reply for LNC about morality. I will just refrain from posting it

 

And as a suggestion, perhaps it would be helpful to reframe the discussion. It seems as though it might help cut off some of the tangents if there is a direction to the debate.

Maybe we could splinter off the discussion about morality into a separate thread if it's possible?

 

I'm pretty sure LNC is busy enough tackling this thread, but if he's up for it I wouldn't mind.

[LNC]

Sorry that I have not been able to reply as of late, things are getting busy for me. Hans, I have been trying to get access to some of the research you mentioned and can't seem to get much detail. Do you have a link to any reports? I will try to reply again when I have more time.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry that I have not been able to reply as of late, things are getting busy for me. Hans, I have been trying to get access to some of the research you mentioned and can't seem to get much detail. Do you have a link to any reports? I will try to reply again when I have more time.

Sure. I will try to find a link to the document, or I will just send you the PDF copy. No problem. And busy is my middle-name, so I know how it is, and no apologies needed.

 

--edit--

 

Links:

 

Article from a science magazine about an experiment last year: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/216/4

 

Abstract for Aspect, et.al. for Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610241 (click on PDF for full text)

 

Article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=quantu...ice-experiments

 

Quantum Eraser: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-do-i...-quantum-eraser

 

When you're done explaining, and proving beyond doubt, that it's not backward causality in action, then we'll move on to the other 10-15 topics I have lined up. My approach this time will be for you to answer the paradoxes and conundrums we can see in nature. Do understand, I keep my mind open for the possibility that all these things can be explained within the context of the first premise of the Kalam argument, but since many of these things do not have an explanation yet, I consider the first premise of Kalam to be unsubstantiated, and hence the conclusion is based on an moot assumption.

[LNC]

Sorry that I have not been able to reply as of late, things are getting busy for me. Hans, I have been trying to get access to some of the research you mentioned and can't seem to get much detail. Do you have a link to any reports? I will try to reply again when I have more time.

Sure. I will try to find a link to the document, or I will just send you the PDF copy. No problem. And busy is my middle-name, so I know how it is, and no apologies needed.

 

--edit--

 

Links:

 

Article from a science magazine about an experiment last year: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/216/4

 

Abstract for Aspect, et.al. for Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610241 (click on PDF for full text)

 

Article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=quantu...ice-experiments

 

Quantum Eraser: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-do-i...-quantum-eraser

 

When you're done explaining, and proving beyond doubt, that it's not backward causality in action, then we'll move on to the other 10-15 topics I have lined up. My approach this time will be for you to answer the paradoxes and conundrums we can see in nature. Do understand, I keep my mind open for the possibility that all these things can be explained within the context of the first premise of the Kalam argument, but since many of these things do not have an explanation yet, I consider the first premise of Kalam to be unsubstantiated, and hence the conclusion is based on an moot assumption.

 

Hey Hans, I have been reading through some information on delayed choice and quantum erasers, thanks for sending this over, it is interesting stuff. I have a few questions for you and don't want to assume your position prior to responding. First, what conclusions do you draw from the experiments and what implications do those have for you and your worldview? Second, how do you arrive at your conclusions and implications?

 

I am traveling next week, so if I can carve out the time prior to leaving I will try to respond beforehand, but it may have to wait until aftward as I have a lot to do to prepare for this trip.

[Asimov]

I am traveling next week, so if I can carve out the time prior to leaving I will try to respond beforehand, but it may have to wait until aftward as I have a lot to do to prepare for this trip.

 

Enjoy your trip!

[Ouroboros]

Hey Hans, I have been reading through some information on delayed choice and quantum erasers, thanks for sending this over, it is interesting stuff. I have a few questions for you and don't want to assume your position prior to responding. First, what conclusions do you draw from the experiments and what implications do those have for you and your worldview? Second, how do you arrive at your conclusions and implications?

 

I am traveling next week, so if I can carve out the time prior to leaving I will try to respond beforehand, but it may have to wait until aftward as I have a lot to do to prepare for this trip.

My conclusion is as follows: since we can't be sure how to solve the problems regarding quantum physics, we can't say that causality, as specified in premise #1 in the Kalam argument, as a definitive fact, and that means to say that to claim the Kalam first premise to be a fact is wrong. It might be that everything can be explained by cause-and-effect, but it might be that cause-and-effect is an illusion of a completely different structure. Hence the first step is to admit that Kalam, or any Cosmological argument, is based on a fundamental assumption, of which we can't be sure. (Did you even look up "Causality" in the philosophical encyclopedia, as I recommended? Do you agree with their conclusion about the impossibility of proving causality as a universal truth? At least, that's my understanding from what I read. I will try to get back to the library next week and quote a bit from it.) Do you understand my take on this? I do not say: "look here, the science have now proven that causality does not exist at all. Haha! I'm right!" No! My take on it is that any absolute statement is wrong either way. But if the Kalam argument is to be taken as a "proof", the premises must to be taken as absolute truth.

 

Let's make another logical coherent argument:

p1) all blonds are stupid

p2) Bob is blond

c) Bob id stupid.

 

That is logically valid, but it's based on an assumption which many here would disagree to. I see the Kalam argument the same way. The Kalam is only a "proof" to those who wants to believe.

 

I have to look it up at home, but there is a term for an alternative philosophical view of causality. It states that cause-and-effect is an illusion, and there's an underlying principle that drives the visual "object" to behave as a cause and effect was real. I can't explain it better right now, because I have to get back to work, but I'll try to find it again tonight or later this week and quote from my small encyclopedia. And what's interesting with that one is that it's based on God as the form-giver. The one who makes it behave this way. The world is causal, because God is constantly making one thing reacting to another. Like a puppeteer.

[PandaPirate]

I've been leaning toward the Holographic Principle lately. Seems to explain a lot of "unexplainable" phenomeno. I don't exactly know how that would fit into a "beginning" but I'm doing more reading.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

[LNC]

My conclusion is as follows: since we can't be sure how to solve the problems regarding quantum physics, we can't say that causality, as specified in premise #1 in the Kalam argument, as a definitive fact, and that means to say that to claim the Kalam first premise to be a fact is wrong. It might be that everything can be explained by cause-and-effect, but it might be that cause-and-effect is an illusion of a completely different structure. Hence the first step is to admit that Kalam, or any Cosmological argument, is based on a fundamental assumption, of which we can't be sure. (Did you even look up "Causality" in the philosophical encyclopedia, as I recommended? Do you agree with their conclusion about the impossibility of proving causality as a universal truth? At least, that's my understanding from what I read. I will try to get back to the library next week and quote a bit from it.) Do you understand my take on this? I do not say: "look here, the science have now proven that causality does not exist at all. Haha! I'm right!" No! My take on it is that any absolute statement is wrong either way. But if the Kalam argument is to be taken as a "proof", the premises must to be taken as absolute truth.

 

Let's make another logical coherent argument:

p1) all blonds are stupid

p2) Bob is blond

c) Bob id stupid.

 

That is logically valid, but it's based on an assumption which many here would disagree to. I see the Kalam argument the same way. The Kalam is only a "proof" to those who wants to believe.

 

I have to look it up at home, but there is a term for an alternative philosophical view of causality. It states that cause-and-effect is an illusion, and there's an underlying principle that drives the visual "object" to behave as a cause and effect was real. I can't explain it better right now, because I have to get back to work, but I'll try to find it again tonight or later this week and quote from my small encyclopedia. And what's interesting with that one is that it's based on God as the form-giver. The one who makes it behave this way. The world is causal, because God is constantly making one thing reacting to another. Like a puppeteer.

 

Again, sorry for my delay in responding. I have been swamped with family, work, school, and travel in the past few weeks and my time has not been my own. It has allowed me to think through this issue a lot more, however, which has been a good thing. Here is what I would like to respond, and this response will be brief, but hopefully, meaningful. I would say that the experiment that you pointed me to would throw some doubt on whether causality is always valid; yet, not necessarily so since it may just be an epistemological problem of not understanding what causes the photon to move in one direction rather than the other. We then have to ask ourselves whether the weight of this evidence would or should lead us to the conclusion that causality is not always a valid principle, and here is where I would say that based upon everything else that we know we would or should say probably not.

 

If one experiment shows the possibility that our intuitions and the weight of all of our other empirical data may be wrong or invalid, then we have good reason to question whether this experiment truly violates the principle of causality or whether we are just not understanding a facet of causality that is impacting the results of this experiment. To be honest, I don't think that these scientists will be satisfied in just saying that causality is violated in this one exception, but they will continue to study to find out why the photons move in one direction rather than the other. If we say that causality is violated in this experiment, then it opens the door to all of our understanding of science that the nature of the world since causality is a first principle of both philosophy and science. I believe to abandon or even seriously doubt causality because of this experiment would be nothing more than committing the "scientism in the gaps" fallacy. In other words, abandoning a well established principle because of experimental data that is not fully understood. For that reason, I think that at this point, Kalaam is still on solid ground.

[Ouroboros]

Again, sorry for my delay in responding. I have been swamped with family, work, school, and travel in the past few weeks and my time has not been my own. It has allowed me to think through this issue a lot more, however, which has been a good thing. Here is what I would like to respond, and this response will be brief, but hopefully, meaningful. I would say that the experiment that you pointed me to would throw some doubt on whether causality is always valid; yet, not necessarily so since it may just be an epistemological problem of not understanding what causes the photon to move in one direction rather than the other. We then have to ask ourselves whether the weight of this evidence would or should lead us to the conclusion that causality is not always a valid principle, and here is where I would say that based upon everything else that we know we would or should say probably not.

 

If one experiment shows the possibility that our intuitions and the weight of all of our other empirical data may be wrong or invalid, then we have good reason to question whether this experiment truly violates the principle of causality or whether we are just not understanding a facet of causality that is impacting the results of this experiment. To be honest, I don't think that these scientists will be satisfied in just saying that causality is violated in this one exception, but they will continue to study to find out why the photons move in one direction rather than the other. If we say that causality is violated in this experiment, then it opens the door to all of our understanding of science that the nature of the world since causality is a first principle of both philosophy and science. I believe to abandon or even seriously doubt causality because of this experiment would be nothing more than committing the "scientism in the gaps" fallacy. In other words, abandoning a well established principle because of experimental data that is not fully understood. For that reason, I think that at this point, Kalaam is still on solid ground.

No, Kalam is not on solid ground, since it assumes that there is a causality which can't be explained by science yet. You can not use the assumption that science maybe don't know the answer yet, and assume causality to be universally true, only for the purpose of making Kalam true. For Kalam to be true, you have to prove the premise to be universally true. Go ahead. Do it, and get a Nobel prize. Kalam doesn't magically become true because you want it to be true. And causality doesn't become true, just because you want Kalam to be true.

 

An argument is only as solid as its premises, and if the premises can be debated, then the argument isn't solid. I'm really surprised you can't see that. As long as the premise isn't a proven universal truth, you can't argue the Kalam is solid.

 

You see, I can agree that Kalam could be (with emphasis on "could") still true, even if the premise is false, but the issue I have is to claim that the Kalam is solid and true, when one of the premises are still in doubt! Basically, it's a leap of faith from premise to conclusion.

 

The thing is, there are more and more evidence that points to that Quantum is the fabric of causality. In other words, causality as we see it in classical physics, behaves that way because quantum mechanics makes it possible. The fabric of causality, time, and space, must break down at some point. It's kind of getting into the theory of occasional causation. Think about this, when the cue ball hits the eight ball, what caused the eight ball to move? Was it the inertia, or the cue ball, or the weak and strong forces of billions of particles in both balls which interacted with a repulsive force, and where does gravity, air resistance, friction, etc come into play too? First of all causes are multiple, not singular, and secondly, the forces that actually interact are at the particle level through forces, and those particles interact because of quantum mechanical forces, which in turn... we get back to that cause and effect is the result of some underlying structure of our universe. And since in your world view it was created, its foundation must be on top of a non-causal structure. Building block, upon building block, unless you believe God created a universe outside himself, in which he doesn't exist and can't interact with. How can he interact with this universe, unless he can act between the two world of non-causal supernatural spiritual world, and the causal, time-space, dependent universe we live in. I guess your view is that God somehow jumps between on existence into another existence, when he interacts, and the angels do the same thing. Just think about it.

 

Another thing that worries me about your strong attempts of proving God's existence, is that, what happens to your faith if you do prove God to exist? Kalam is supposed to be some kind of undeniable evidence that God must exist, and what happens to your belief then? Do you seriously believe and know, at the same time? If you know, by this totally convincing argument that God exists, then you really don't believe or have faith, since that's a matter of believing in this you can't see or prove. Or?

 

Yet another thing I think you should think about is, what about free will? Is the free will bound by causality too? If not, then you admit there are non causal events existing in our world, i.e. our free will. If our free will is bound by a string of causal events, all leading back in time to one event, then it would mean we have no free will, our will must then be deterministic. So which way do you want this to go? Is free will deterministic, or is it a free, non-causal agent, and hence some events (like me typing this text) are contrary to the assumption of the first premise. Right?

[Ouroboros]

Furthermore, I want to give you a quote from the "Q for Quantum" book I referred to earlier, and I would like to see what your thoughts are about it:

(Under the label: uncertainty)

...It means that no entity can have both a precisely determined momentum (which essentially means velocity) and a precisely determined position at the same time. This is not the result of the deficiencies of our measuring apparatus - it is not just that we cannot measure both the position and the momentum of, say, an electron at the same time, but that an electron does not have both a precise position and a precise momentum at the same time. At any instant, the electron itself cannot know both where it is and where it is going. (Some reference books still tell you that the quantum uncertainty is solely a result of the difficulty of measuring position and momentum at the same time; do not believe them!)

...

Do you agree or disagree with above statement?

 

If you continue to read on page 417, you will get an explanation to why.

 

Earlier you said the uncertainty principle was about epistemology, which I don't see in above statement, but rather a rejection of such arguments. It's not about that we can't measure the position and momentum at the same time, but rather, they do not exist at the same time regardless of method for measurement. So it's not that we can't know the (p, m) because of our equipment, but because reality doesn't have both (p, m) existing simultaneous. Or do you interpret above statement different than me?

[LNC]

No, Kalam is not on solid ground, since it assumes that there is a causality which can't be explained by science yet. You can not use the assumption that science maybe don't know the answer yet, and assume causality to be universally true, only for the purpose of making Kalam true. For Kalam to be true, you have to prove the premise to be universally true. Go ahead. Do it, and get a Nobel prize. Kalam doesn't magically become true because you want it to be true. And causality doesn't become true, just because you want Kalam to be true.

 

Causality isn't explained by science it is only verified by science. Causality is a philosophical principle that has never been shown conclusively to be invalid. You are actually refuting yourself by using an experiment for which they have not conclusively explained the results, to deny a principle that has never been categorically found to fail. So, it is not causality that has to be explained since it is a first principle of both philosophy and science. It would be like saying that logic needs to be explained by science before we can assume that it is universally true. The problem is that you cannot prove logic is true without assuming logic. Just as you cannot prove anything in science without assuming causality. Unless you are aware of any experimentation that has taken place without using causality, including the delayed choice experiment. So, no I don't assume causality in order for Kalam to be true any more than you do to prove that it is false. The problem is that you cannot prove causlity to be false without assuming causality, which is why the concept is self-defeating.

 

An argument is only as solid as its premises, and if the premises can be debated, then the argument isn't solid. I'm really surprised you can't see that. As long as the premise isn't a proven universal truth, you can't argue the Kalam is solid.

 

Again, you haven't defeated the either premise of Kalam, you have just shown an experiment that may possiblly be explained as denying causality; however, possibility and plausibility are two vastly different concepts. Just becasue something is possible, doesn't necessarily make it plausible. So, until you can show that non-causality is plausible the premise is still on solid footing.

 

You see, I can agree that Kalam could be (with emphasis on "could") still true, even if the premise is false, but the issue I have is to claim that the Kalam is solid and true, when one of the premises are still in doubt! Basically, it's a leap of faith from premise to conclusion.

 

It seems to me that you are special pleading by claiming that this experiment violates causality when all of our other experience, in fact all of science is built on the assumption of causality. Why should we assume that this experiment violates causality when we aren't sure that this conclusion can validly be drawn. We don't know why the photons go one way versus the other, so why abandon causality so quickly, unless of course it helps you explain your worldview to do so.

 

The thing is, there are more and more evidence that points to that Quantum is the fabric of causality. In other words, causality as we see it in classical physics, behaves that way because quantum mechanics makes it possible. The fabric of causality, time, and space, must break down at some point. It's kind of getting into the theory of occasional causation. Think about this, when the cue ball hits the eight ball, what caused the eight ball to move? Was it the inertia, or the cue ball, or the weak and strong forces of billions of particles in both balls which interacted with a repulsive force, and where does gravity, air resistance, friction, etc come into play too? First of all causes are multiple, not singular, and secondly, the forces that actually interact are at the particle level through forces, and those particles interact because of quantum mechanical forces, which in turn... we get back to that cause and effect is the result of some underlying structure of our universe. And since in your world view it was created, its foundation must be on top of a non-causal structure. Building block, upon building block, unless you believe God created a universe outside himself, in which he doesn't exist and can't interact with. How can he interact with this universe, unless he can act between the two world of non-causal supernatural spiritual world, and the causal, time-space, dependent universe we live in. I guess your view is that God somehow jumps between on existence into another existence, when he interacts, and the angels do the same thing. Just think about it.

 

It seems that you are jumping back and forth now between causality and non-causality; the question is, where do you draw that line? How do you know that something is caused versus uncaused? How can non-causality lead to causality? From where do the laws come? I have already explained that it is not impossible for God to enter into time and there is nothing metaphyscially about His nature that would prevent Him, even though He is uncaused, from being a causal agent. However, your explanation of quantum fabric and causality is nice in theory, but far from being proven or explained in reality, so what you are relying on is scientism to fill in the gaps.

 

Another thing that worries me about your strong attempts of proving God's existence, is that, what happens to your faith if you do prove God to exist? Kalam is supposed to be some kind of undeniable evidence that God must exist, and what happens to your belief then? Do you seriously believe and know, at the same time? If you know, by this totally convincing argument that God exists, then you really don't believe or have faith, since that's a matter of believing in this you can't see or prove. Or?

 

I am not sure that that is much of an objection. The Bible makes it clear that we now "see through a glass darkly." IOW, we don't see God directly, but through the evidence that He has left behind. Kalam does not get a person all the way to understanding God as He is, only that it is more plausible that God exists. We need other bits of information and evidence to get us to the God of the Bible. Included would be such things as evidence from design, the moral argument, and the revelation that Jesus provided. However, the verse mentioned earlier does say that we will one day see face to face. We will not need faith at that time, we will have direct experience, which will be better not worse than faith. So, yes, faith will one day be replaced by direct experience.

 

Yet another thing I think you should think about is, what about free will? Is the free will bound by causality too? If not, then you admit there are non causal events existing in our world, i.e. our free will. If our free will is bound by a string of causal events, all leading back in time to one event, then it would mean we have no free will, our will must then be deterministic. So which way do you want this to go? Is free will deterministic, or is it a free, non-causal agent, and hence some events (like me typing this text) are contrary to the assumption of the first premise. Right?

 

Sure, free will is ultimately tied into causality, although, I am not sure what you mean by bound. When I choose to do something and then act on that choice, it leads to an effect, or effects. You are equivocating in your language by saying that my making a free choice is equivalent to an inanimate object making an undetermined choice. A photon does not have free will; therefore, it is bound by the causal agency directing its path. However, I am an effect of my parents' decision to marry and have children - I had no choice in that decision. I am also affected by their choices earlier in their lives (where they lived, jobs they chose, etc.). So, again, you haven't made a case to deny causality in this example.

[Ouroboros]

I give up. You just don't get it. I don't know why, but we seem to talk past each other completely, so I will only give you a link to an article which is in the same direction as I'm going, maybe it will help you understand better what my argument really is about: http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/kalam-not.html. (Wes Morriston's critique, as you probably well know.)

 

And I will copy a couple of quotes from the philosophical encyclopedia next week about causality. But I'm not going to argue this anymore. Perhaps one day you will figure out what I was saying, and you'll be back, but until then I'm out of this topic.

[R. S. Martin]

I have no longer been following this thread but just now I found something that might be relevant. It's from the website of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, not from from where I live. It's in an article on Cosmology and talks about what things were like in but a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. It suggests that the universe could have come from nothing. Here is the home page for those who don't know what the Perimeter Institute is. It's real science, world-class cutting edge, so far as I can make out, with researchers from all over the world.