The Cosmological Argument

[Valjean]

It could be argued that the universe has neither a beginning, as we conceive it, nor a cause. Physicists argue this all the time, and empirical evidence seems to bear this out.

You can't apply common sense or everyday experience to quantum Reality.

 

[javajo]

If God “created” the universe that means time was involved. Creation implies taking some sort of time, but you say God is outside of time. How does that work?

The creation had a beginning, that is when time began. God was before that.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thanks - that's helpful, or at least intriguing. Which testable cosmologies evidence a universe without a beginning?

Sorry for the delay, I haven't been on RF for a couple of days.

There are no testable cosmologies for a universe with or without a beginning at this time. Cosmology just sort of starts with the BBE, since it's the earliest empirical event in principle we can study at this time -- but nothing about it being the earliest that we can observe indicates that it's necessarily the beginning. We can make no assertions before (actually, even during) the Planck epoch of the BBE. Essentially, physics is unable to answer the question of whether the universe began to ontologically exist at all at this time in either direction.

Thus in order for the cosmological argument to work, someone would need to supply metaphysical evidence that the universe began to ontologically exist. I can't think of any way they could do that, since any such system will eventually involve some eternal thing, and I can't think of why the universe itself couldn't just be some eternal thing.

So, I don't find the cosmological argument to be convincing at all. In order to be convincing one must make presuppositions that cause it to be circular in nature.

 

[javajo]

I can't think of why the universe itself couldn't just be some eternal thing.

The universe did have a beginning, shown by the laws of thermodynamics;

1st law: the total amount of mass energy in the universe is constant.
2nd law: the amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, that is entropy is increasing to a maximum.

Briefly, If the total amount of energy is limited and the amount of useable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have already used up all its energy.

 

[PolyHedral]

Essentially, physics is unable to answer the question of whether the universe began to ontologically exist at all at this time in either direction.

IIRC, time goes incredibly wibbly just after the BBE, so the "beginning of time" might not be a coherent idea in itself.

Briefly, If the total amount of energy is limited and the amount of useable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have already used up all its energy.

By the same logic, all of the (infinite) integers are infinitely large. After all, there's an infinity of negative numbers before zero, isn't there?

 

[Corkscrew]

The creation had a beginning, that is when time began. God was before that.

How can there be a "before" if there was no time?

 

[9Westy9]

humour!

Ad-Dukhan(The smoke)
44:9 Yet they play about in doubt.

Sorry but I still believe that Allah had created you and your ancestors and he will make you die one day.

How pleasant . And I still think that nothing happens after death . Going back to your "what other gods claim" quote I could mention several religions.

How about
Christian Creation Story
Hindu Creation Story
Zoroastrian Creation Myth
Shinto Creation Story

 

[Orontes]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

Hello,

Yes. There are errors. The above formulation of a cosmological argument is sloppy. Several replies seem to have focused on (2), particularly whether or not the universe had a beginning or such can be proven. This isn’t the really flaw of your argument. The subject in (2) is simply a place holder for a contingent X. Unless one wants to argue the universe is logically necessary, then the content of X in (2,) insofar as it is a contingent object, isn’t really a factor. What is a factor is (4). It doesn’t follow that because a given contingent X (i.e. your universe) exists, that the cause is then God. Based on (1) it simply follows the X in (2) had a cause. Your argument doesn’t provide why this cause of (2) needs to be God.

 

[Dan4reason]

The universe did have a beginning, shown by the laws of thermodynamics;

1st law: the total amount of mass energy in the universe is constant.
2nd law: the amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, that is entropy is increasing to a maximum.

Briefly, If the total amount of energy is limited and the amount of useable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have already used up all its energy.

Or maybe the rate at which it is using up its work slows down over time and approaches, however I doubt that this universe has been around for an infinite amount of time. I am not sure if those rules work outside the universe, outside space time, and the world of matter.

 

[Dan4reason]

None. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. The universe had a beginning because of entropy, that is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that the amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down so entropy is increasing to a maximum.

According to Einstein's general relativity, since time is linked to matter and space, time also had a beginning along with matter and space at the beginning of the universe. Since God created it, he is outside time and so had no beginning in time so he doesn't need a cause. That's foolproof proof of God, brotha!

What if something else outside this universe and time created this universe?

 

[Dan4reason]

The questions bring up an interesting thought. If the universe had a beginning, what existed prior to the universe? If it was nothing, what is nothing? I imagine “nothing” to be void of time and space. A reality we cannot even grasp. Maybe such a reality is not possible.

It it probably what exists outside our universe.

 

[Willamena]

It it probably what exists outside our universe.

So you're saying nothing exists outside our universe.

 

[Meow Mix]

The universe did have a beginning, shown by the laws of thermodynamics;

1st law: the total amount of mass energy in the universe is constant.
2nd law: the amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, that is entropy is increasing to a maximum.

Briefly, If the total amount of energy is limited and the amount of useable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have already used up all its energy.

Hi java,

This isn't a correct interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics -- though it's close. The entropic gradient does overall always point the same direction, but thermodynamic processes are entirely probablistic. There is a non-zero probability that even a system in thermodynamic equilibrium will have local entropic decreases through sheer chance alone. In a system the size of the megaverse (e.g., the universe including that which is farther than the limits of the visible universe) it's easily the case that a pocket of decreased entropy could be the size of the visible universe; especially if it's expanding.

Furthermore, this could go on forever (though indeed, with long lapses in between); and more than that, given infinite time, the odds approach complete certainty that it will happen.

Also, given infinite time, certain systems can reset to a state very similar to their original state in a phenomenon known as Poincare Recurrence:

Since the first infinite sum can be arbitrarily small, there exist intervals for T in relation to delta^2 / 2:

The interval can be arbitrarily small; and so the state of the system returns arbitrarily close to the original state of the system infinitely often without violating thermodynamics. That's assuming the system exists eternally and the phase states of the system don't intersect.

Edit: The maths aren't required to understand the argument, they're there for any that want to follow them. Explanation of the symbols and relation to the eigenstates is in the link provided.

 

[Corkscrew]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

I have a problem with this list starting at number 1. “Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.” In our common experience, I have to agree with you. Due to processes that are easily comprehendible, matter and energy are transformed into different things like stars, planets and people. We have a good idea how all this happens, but how did that original mass and energy that eventually came to be these things come into existence. It is easy for us to see in the later stages how these things are created. There is nothing mystical about it and there is no question how these transformations of mass and energy occur, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that causality is how the original mass and energy of the universe came into existence. Just because we can see cause and effect happening around us does not mean that the original building blocks of the universe came into being in the same manner. I know weird things happen in the world of quantum physics, things that defy our common sense and cause and effect may be a foreign term to that process. I’m no physicist, and I might be way off the mark with this, but this is one of the things that I’m not so sure we can so easily assume. I’m not saying you are wrong in your conclusion, I am saying that I don’t believe we know that for a fact.

 

[Corkscrew]

It it probably what exists outside our universe.

So nothing exists outside our universe and consequently meaningless to talk about an existence outside of our universe. Sounds good, but I feel confident in stating that the inhabitants of our universe will never know what lies beyond our universe or if there even is a beyond our universe.

 

[Meow Mix]

So nothing exists outside our universe and consequently meaningless to talk about an existence outside of our universe. Sounds good, but I feel confident in stating that the inhabitants of our universe will never know what lies beyond our universe or if there even is a beyond our universe.

Strictly speaking there can't be anything outside of "the universe," since the universe consists of all things that exist by definition. This comes down to splitting hairs though: usually when we say "universe" we're just talking about the cosmos (e.g., the visible universe in 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension of physical objects).

Consider back when they found out that some of what they thought were "nebulae" were actually "island universe" (i.e., galaxies): when people were originally saying "the universe" they were probably just thinking of what we now call the Milky Way galaxy, when in reality the phrase "the universe" by fiat includes much more than that.

So, to get down to the point: no, by definition nothing can exist outside the universe. Of course not, since "the universe" by definition is everything that exists.

However, asking whether or not something might exist outside the visible or empirical universe is another story: as far as we know, that might be possible.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

Up until number 4. I do believe in the law of cause and effect, and therefore, the universe had to have had a beginning. However, I do not believe that it absolutely has to have been a god that created everything. It could just as easily have been a force or energy, or a natural law.

 

[Corkscrew]

Strictly speaking there can't be anything outside of "the universe," since the universe consists of all things that exist by definition. This comes down to splitting hairs though: usually when we say "universe" we're just talking about the cosmos (e.g., the visible universe in 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension of physical objects).

Consider back when they found out that some of what they thought were "nebulae" were actually "island universe" (i.e., galaxies): when people were originally saying "the universe" they were probably just thinking of what we now call the Milky Way galaxy, when in reality the phrase "the universe" by fiat includes much more than that.

So, to get down to the point: no, by definition nothing can exist outside the universe. Of course not, since "the universe" by definition is everything that exists.

However, asking whether or not something might exist outside the visible or empirical universe is another story: as far as we know, that might be possible.

I think I understand what you are saying, but there are things I find confusing, for example when I hear about the expanse of the universe, my first thought is what medium is the universe expanding into. Apparently I am looking at it in the wrong way. But I find it difficult to comprehend how I should be looking at it.

 

[Dan4reason]

So you're saying nothing exists outside our universe.

I don't know if anything does or does not. We cannot assume either way.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I don't know if anything does or does not. We cannot assume either way.

Our perceptions and experience are limited to space-time, so I would agree with you that it is pointless to discuss whether anything exists outside this sphere or not, as we could never know, unless you accept the claims of mystics, which are highly subjective to begin with.