The Cosmological Argument

[Meow Mix]

Not quite. The Standard Model is actually a Friedman-Lemitre model and it precedes the Hawking and Penrose theorems of the 70’s.

I'm not familiar with a Friedman-Lemaitre model of the BBE. There is a Lorentz metric with those names attached to it -- I don't think we ever got into it very much in class, it was from the very early 1900's, maybe even 1910/1920 or so. Maybe I'll google it later -- perhaps they initially formed a model with the Lorentz metric I'm thinking of; but I'm pretty sure it's outdated as we barely touched on it at all other than in the name of historical science.

Granted. As I said before, the argument doesn’t depend upon a singularity point. As long as the model in some way suggest that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past, then the argument is justified. But a singularity is not necessary. Speaking of Hawking, he said “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang” (Hawking and Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, pg. 20.) Even if modern BB models don’t incorporate singularities, when you probe deep into them, they all suggests the universe is not past eternal but had a beginning at some point in the finite past. Once again, the standard bb model has the most empirical evidence supporting it, and it does suggest a singularity.

Touché on the Hawking quote; but this goes back to my original warning that in popular science the language is simplified for the non-mathematical/non-physicist community. To say the universe "...had a beginning at the big bang" can have several contexts: indeed, I've already openly declared that it's undeniable that the current state of the universe began with the BBE. The problem here is manyfold:

1) Popular science can get away with insinuating things that are "true enough" but ultimately untrue in the name of making it easier to understand for a layperson audience

2) The English language is not equipped to handle the notion of time on the Planck scale, in imaginary time, or potential multiple temporal dimensions*

3) Some physicists can be excellent at the physical sciences but otherwise utterly lacking in the metaphysics behind them (David Bohm comes to mind) -- it's entirely possible that some physicist here or there indeed holds a de facto misunderstanding of the ontological implications of the BBE

(* -- I once tried to solve a tricky problem by trying to "smooth it out" by using a gauge transform to even out the math. Much to my surprise, my choice of transform incidentally (and subtly) balanced my spatial dimensions with temporal dimensions: I ended up describing some crazy system with three spatial and three temporal dimensions. Whoops! That may not have been the best thing to do for my grade, but the salient point here is that nothing rules out multiple temporal dimensions outright; and English [or any other natural language] simply isn't equipped to deal with that!)

I explained lengthily and technically exactly where and why an assertion that time "began to exist" could arise from BB cosmology; but in the same post I explained exactly why that reasoning is erroneous. Finite geodesics don't necessarily imply a finite system, even temporally.

The idea is coming from the implications of the model. As physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler point out “At this singularity, space, and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so if the universe originated at such a singuarlity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo” (Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principal, 1986, pg 442). Now as I said before, if you want to take a Hawking/Hartle model at which there is no singularity, that is fine also. But even on that model the universe still begin to exist. A singularity is not necessary and I only use the standard model because it has the most evidence supporting it. Any model that will suggest the beginning of the universe from a finite past can be used to support premise 2 of the KCA, that the universe began to exist.

Again, however, these models aren't suggesting an ontological beginning. A temporal or spatial dimension can prima facie begin a state without ontologically beginning at all. No one is denying here that the BBE marked a profound new thing that we refer to as time and spatial separation in the current state of the known/visible universe -- but nothing about that indicates that the universe itself, such as the energy and matter, had an ontological beginning.

Again, the reason some physicists are saying in popular science that there was a "beginning" is because most of them are using language that's easy to understand; and otherwise some few actually don't understand the metaphysics behind the notion: that was the point of the mathematical thread I made. The reason someone might make the assertion that there was an ontological beginning is solely because we have finite geodesics in our current models: the maths can go where the physical data can't, some might reason; and so they declare a beginning.

But by doing so, they're simply failing to understand the wider implications that I exposed in that post. Finite geodesics on some timeline don't indicate a finite existence.

What the BB tells us is that the universe began to exist. In order for something to begin to exist, there must have been a time where it didn’t exist. The word “Ontological” is a study of existence. If the universe began to exist, there was nothing ontological about it :0)

I don't feel as though you've really supported your argument, though. I've thoroughly supported my argument as to why BB models can be misinterpreted as an ontological beginning; and furthermore I justified fully why that interpretation is false and misguided.

I don't need to appeal to multiverse hypotheses for my points to be correct, but I think it might be prudent to use a multiverse scenario as a recognizable/cognitive example here just to make a point.

Suppose for a moment that there is a multiverse wherein new pockets of spacetime (such as our visible universe) bud off from other pockets of spacetime: each time in doing so there is a Big Bang-like event in the "new" pocket of spacetime.

Now suppose that cosmologists and theologians eventually develop in this new envelope of spacetime: the theologians will look at the cosmological data (which in principle doesn't go beyond their own pocket's formation) and say, "Aha! You see? The universe began ontologically." But the cosmologists will shrug and say, "Actually, we don't have enough to work off of prior to the Planck epoch, so you can't make that assertion." The cosmologists would be correct.

Again, I don't have to appeal to multiverses for my points to be correct -- but hopefully that analogy helps to demonstrate in at least one sense why apparently finite geodesics don't logically indicate an ontological beginning.

The real point here isn't that I'm arguing cosmology demonstrates there was no ontological beginning and that the universe has existed eternally: the point is that there is no data to support either assertion; and that we should therefore rationally be agnostic about the issue -- which includes abstaining from using a cosmological argument that assumes an ontological beginning of the universe. As has been my argument the whole time, that assumption would be entirely unfounded in reason.

Point granted. The standard model needs to be modified. We need to use quantum physics at that point and no one is sure how this is to be done. But even when modified, the prediction that the universe had an absolute beginning is not negated. The Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem of 2003 showed that any universe that has been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. So, the second premise of the kalam is still confirmed by modern, not outdated, but modern cosmology.

Ah! Yes, you're probably referring to this paper. This is actually still a hot topic in cosmology. In fact, Vilenkin himself had this to say when asked whether or not their paper demonstrated that the universe had an ontological beginning:

If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but..." So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.​

​

(This was said in an e-mail exchange between Victor Stenger, Alexander Venkin, and Ken Voshee; posted on said blog with permission)​

 

[Meow Mix]

In any case, if a blogged e-mail conversation isn't sufficient to demonstrate what I've been saying (that these physicists are using simplified language -- i.e., "beginning" doesn't mean "ontological beginning") you can scope out Venkin's book, "Many Worlds In One:"

The state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.

You have to take his use of the term "no universe" with a grain of salt. We can all informally use the phrase "the universe" to refer to the visible cosmos; but that's not ultimately what that term means metaphysically. It's a matter of using that term for convenience. Clearly, if there was metaphysical existence of ontological boundary (e.g. laws), then there is an existence of the universe -- even if not in its present state of spatiotemporal expansiveness and separation.


It's easy to think of "the universe" as a spatiotemporally expanded collection of states -- but that's just one possible state of the universe. The beginning of the current state doesn't imply an ontological beginning of the universe itself.

[[[[The problem is that our models have geodesics described by Einstein's relativity, but that very same thing (Einstein's concepts) are incompatible with quantum mechanics on a fundamental level; and the system we're trying to describe is on the quantum level -- and we're trying to describe it with relativistic equations, which simply can't work.]]]] (This portion is in brackets because I wrote it in response to something else but it somehow appeared at the bottom of my post -- I'll have to figure out where this was supposed to go when I'm a little more sober and have a little more time. A girl's gotta get her face on before hitting the bar ya know )_

Indeed it is a stimulating discussion. And I do want to engage in a natural/supernatural thread. Hey, you said you studied cosmology. Is that an individual course or do you have to study astronomy in order to take a cosmo course?? Thanks for the discussion.

I've only ever had one astronomy course -- and hated it. A lot of it is just rote memorization. Sometime tomorrow I'll make a post about the shortcomings of the terms "natural" and "supernatural" and send you an invite

------------

Edit: PS, I wrote this while fairly intoxicated, so if you read this before I get the chance to edit it... uh... just make do as much as you can

 

[Dan4reason]

What the BB tells us is that the universe began to exist. In order for something to begin to exist, there must have been a time where it didn’t exist. The word “Ontological” is a study of existence. If the universe began to exist, there was nothing ontological about it :0)

Well if time began to exist along with the universe, then there was no evidence of time when it didn't exist.

Fair enough. But it is worth mentioning that if/since time had a beginning, whatever gave it its beginning had to transcend (or exist beyond) time itself.

Agreed. But did that thing have to be God?

It is quite simple. You are made up of matter. You occupy space. You live in time. You are bound by natural law. God is immaterial, non-spatial, and timeless, and he isn’t bound by natural law because natural law doesn’t apply to anything that is not natural.

How do you know that natural laws don't work outside the universe. Maybe at least some of them do.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

　

I'm not familiar with a Friedman-Lemaitre model of the BBE. There is a Lorentz metric with those names attached to it -- I don't think we ever got into it very much in class, it was from the very early 1900's, maybe even 1910/1920 or so. Maybe I'll google it later -- perhaps they initially formed a model with the Lorentz metric I'm thinking of; but I'm pretty sure it's outdated as we barely touched on it at all other than in the name of historical science.

It was somewhere in the 1920’s because the model is based on GR. No doubt the model needs to be adjusted but it still predicts an absolute beginning of the universe, which is what premise two indicates.

　

1) Popular science can get away with insinuating things that are "true enough" but ultimately untrue in the name of making it easier to understand for a layperson audience

Well, what do you think Mr. Hawking meant by the word “beginning” in that context? [/quote]

2) The English language is not equipped to handle the notion of time on the Planck scale, in imaginary time, or potential multiple temporal dimensions*

Huh?


　

3) Some physicists can be excellent at the physical sciences but otherwise utterly lacking in the metaphysics behind them (David Bohm comes to mind) -- it's entirely possible that some physicist here or there indeed holds a de facto misunderstanding of the ontological implications of the BBE

Exactly. And Hawking is another genius that lacks understanding of the metaphysics.

I once tried to solve a tricky problem by trying to "smooth it out" by using a gauge transform to even out the math. Much to my surprise, my choice of transform incidentally (and subtly) balanced my spatial dimensions with temporal dimensions: I ended up describing some crazy system with three spatial and three temporal dimensions. Whoops! That may not have been the best thing to do for my grade, but the salient point here is that nothing rules out multiple temporal dimensions outright; and English [or any other natural language] simply isn't equipped to deal with that!)

I explained lengthily and technically exactly where and why an assertion that time "began to exist" could arise from BB cosmology; but in the same post I explained exactly why that reasoning is erroneous. Finite geodesics don't necessarily imply a finite system, even temporally.

Ahhh, and you do realize that there are good philosophical reasons why time had to have had a beginning, right?

Again, however, these models aren't suggesting an ontological beginning. A temporal or spatial dimension can prima facie begin a state without ontologically beginning at all. No one is denying here that the BBE marked a profound new thing that we refer to as time and spatial separation in the current state of the known/visible universe -- but nothing about that indicates that the universe itself, such as the energy and matter, had an ontological beginning.

Not quite. In the Barrow quote, he said “literally nothing existed”, and he talked about “creation ex nihilo” (out of nothing). If literally nothing existed, that would mean that there was nothing ontologically here. Nothing existed. Ontology deals with the study of existence, but if there was literally nothing here, then there is no room for any ontological talk.

Again, the reason some physicists are saying in popular science that there was a "beginning" is because most of them are using language that's easy to understand; and otherwise some few actually don't understand the metaphysics behind the notion: that was the point of the mathematical thread I made. The reason someone might make the assertion that there was an ontological beginning is solely because we have finite geodesics in our current models: the maths can go where the physical data can't, some might reason; and so they declare a beginning.

Sounds like quantum physics to me. I would like you to further elaborate on what you mean by physicists using “language that’s easy to understand”. Because to me, either the universe had an absolute beginning, or it didn’t have a absolute beginning. And with those two options there is no gray area. For one to be true the other is automatically false. They both cant be true and they both cant be false. When Barrow said that literally nothing existed before the singularity. It seems to me that the point is clear, the universe did not exist at ALL. But now it exist, and that cries for an explanation.

I don't feel as though you've really supported your argument, though. I've thoroughly supported my argument as to why BB models can be misinterpreted as an ontological beginning; and furthermore I justified fully why that interpretation is false and I don't need to appeal to multiverse hypotheses for my points to be correct, but I think it might be prudent to use a multiverse scenario as a recognizable/cognitive example here just to make a point.

But I think I did. Scientists know that the universe had a beginning and they knew exactly what the standard model suggested. Why do you think they postulated all of these other models that were supposed to take the heat off of the standard model (the steady state model, the oscillating model etc)? Modern cosmology points to an absolute beginning of the universe, the only questions are why and how?? Einstein himself knew that his GR theory would not permit an eternal and static model unless he fudged the equations. He knew tat GR at face value meant the universe is expanding and if you travel back in time space would be shrunk to infinite density. So this is nothing new. I am trying to figure out what do you mean that we can safely say that the universe had a beginning, but it didn’t have a ontological beginning. Now of course, having a beginning doesn’t not entail having a beginning point, which is why a singularity is not necessarily needed for the universe to have a beginning. But it should be noted that the standard model cannot exclude the singularity and remain the same model.

Suppose for a moment that there is a multiverse wherein new pockets of spacetime (such as our visible universe) bud off from other pockets of spacetime: each time in doing so there is a Big Bang-like event in the "new" pocket of spacetime. Now suppose that cosmologists and theologians eventually develop in this new envelope of spacetime: the theologians will look at the cosmological data (which in principle doesn't go beyond their own pocket's formation) and say, "Aha! You see? The universe began ontologically." But the cosmologists will shrug and say, "Actually, we don't have enough to work off of prior to the Planck epoch, so you can't make that assertion." The cosmologists would be correct.

That’s my point. Even in your analogy, the universe began to exist. There was a point at which it didn’t exist. The question is why did it begin to exist? Well, in your analogy it began to exist because new pockets of spacetime budded off from other pockets of spacetime, and therefore our spacetime is one of many spacetime that is budding off from different pockets. That is why. But even on that view, you only push the question back further, well, where did the multiverse come from as a whole (amongst other problems plaguing this view). There can’t be an infinite amount of universes out there (for philosophical reasoning arguing against infinity). There was still an absolute beginning to the universe even in this analogy.

The real point here isn't that I'm arguing cosmology demonstrates there was no ontological beginning and that the universe has existed eternally: the point is that there is no data to support either assertion; and that we should therefore rationally be agnostic about the issue -- which includes abstaining from using a cosmological argument that assumes an ontological beginning of the universe. As has been my argument the whole time, that assumption would be entirely unfounded in reason.

But that’s the thing, cosmology DOES demonstrate there is an absolute beginning of the universe. Why do you think there are all of these models out there, to make an attempt to explain WHY the universe can go from not existing one moment, to PRESTO, beginning to exist. We have both philosophical and scientific reasons why the universe not only begin to exist, but why he cant be eternal. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Suppose for a moment that there is a multiverse wherein new pockets of spacetime (such as our visible universe) bud off from other pockets of spacetime: each time in doing so there is a Big Bang-like event in the "new" pocket of spacetime. Now suppose that cosmologists and theologians eventually develop in this new envelope of spacetime: the theologians will look at the cosmological data (which in principle doesn't go beyond their own pocket's formation) and say, "Aha! You see? The universe began ontologically." But the cosmologists will shrug and say, "Actually, we don't have enough to work off of prior to the Planck epoch, so you can't make that assertion." The cosmologists would be correct.

That’s my point. Even in your analogy, the universe began to exist. There was a point at which it didn’t exist. The question is why did it begin to exist? Well, in your analogy it began to exist because new pockets of spacetime budded off from other pockets of spacetime, and therefore our spacetime is one of many spacetime that is budding off from different pockets. That is why. But even on that view, you only push the question back further, well, where did the multiverse come from as a whole (amongst other problems plaguing this view). There can’t be an infinite amount of universes out there (for philosophical reasoning arguing against infinity). There was still an absolute beginning to the universe even in this analogy.

The real point here isn't that I'm arguing cosmology demonstrates there was no ontological beginning and that the universe has existed eternally: the point is that there is no data to support either assertion; and that we should therefore rationally be agnostic about the issue -- which includes abstaining from using a cosmological argument that assumes an ontological beginning of the universe. As has been my argument the whole time, that assumption would be entirely unfounded in reason.

But that’s the thing, cosmology DOES demonstrate there is an absolute beginning of the universe. Why do you think there are all of these models out there, to make an attempt to explain WHY the universe can go from not existing one moment, to PRESTO, beginning to exist. We have both philosophical and scientific reasons why the universe not only begin to exist, but why he cant be eternal. The evidence is overwhelming.

Ah! Yes, you're probably referring to

this paper This is actually still a hot topic in cosmology. In fact, Vilenkin himself had this to say when asked whether or not their paper demonstrated that the universe had an ontological beginning:

Right, and as Vilenkin said you can get around the theorem. But the only way to get around the theorem is you have to have a universe that hasn’t been expanding throughout its history. Well as far as we know our universe HAS been expanding throughout its history. The theorem depends upon a expanding universe, and it states that no universe that has been expanding throughout its history can be eternal. Any model that has no expansion contradicts observation. Hahaa. You keep stating that even though the universe began to exist, it didn’t begin to exist in a ontological sense. I guess I don’t understand what you mean. Unless you mean that our current universe came from some other preexisting natural phenomenon (like the Vacuum model), I don’t understand what you mean. Could you explain this please? It seems to me that if something began to exist, there was a point at which it didn’t exist. For example, when it snows in the winter, and I build a snowman with the snow, the snowman began to exist, even though it is made up of preexisting snow. When we say the universe began to exist, that would suggest that it didn’t exist prior to that beginning, ontological or otherwise. And if something begins to exist, then that something has to have a REASON why it came into being, and the kalam does a good job of narrowing down the options.
　

You have to take his use of the term "no universe" with a grain of salt. We can all informally use the phrase "the universe" to refer to the visible cosmos; but that's not ultimately what that term means metaphysically. It's a matter of using that term for convenience. Clearly, if there was metaphysical existence of ontological boundary (e.g. laws), then there is an existence of the universe -- even if not in its present state of spatiotemporal expansiveness and separation.

By universe I mean “all matter and energy in space, whether known to human or not”.
　
　
　

It's easy to think of "the universe" as a spatiotemporally expanded collection of states -- but that's just one possible state of the universe. The beginning of the current state doesn't imply an ontological beginning of the universe itself.

I mean as a whole. The universe and everything in it all had a beginning. The universe had a state of “not being”.
　
Interesting dialogue.

 

[shawn001]

Thanks for the reply Meow Mix.

However, if you "run the movie backwards" to Plank time, that is putting a lot of matter and space back into a very very small package it would seem?

Did you watch Hawkings curiosity show?

[youtube]WQhd05ZVYWg[/youtube]
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? - YouTube



This is also very good.

Watch video of the Seyfert Lecture featuring Dr. Paul J. Steinhardt, the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University.

Steinhardt, who is also on the faculty of both the Department of Physics and the Department of Astrophysical Sciences, spoke at Vanderbilt March 17, 2011. He is the author of over 200 refereed articles, six patents, and three technical books. In 2007, co-authored Endless Universe: The Big Bang and Beyond, a popular book on contemporary theories of cosmology.

This talk introduces an alternative to the standard big bang model that challenges conventional ideas about space, time and the evolution of the universe.


[youtube]IcxptIJS7kQ[/youtube]
Inflationary cosmology on trial - YouTube

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Dan4reason;2699728]I see, so if a star is created, then we know that it was created by God or aliens, or something else. The fact that it was created does not tell us which one was the cause.

The fact something was created points to me to a creator, be aliens or God its has to have a intelligence governing the process, if things happen randomly then we would not be able to pinpoint a specific formula or mathematical equation. The major point is that every effect has a cause.

I agree that the universe is an effect of a cause, however I am not 100% sure.

Im 100% sure that it is a effect, and you could do a experiment right now, as we are part of this universe we are all governed by its Laws, any effect that happens has a cause, try typing a reply to me, when you type you are the cause of the changes and letters we see on screen. and that is the universal Law.

Well, we are made of star stuff essentially
The universe is structured because many things in existence have causal effects (laws) on other things in existence. For example gravity has a causal effect on matter, so we will see matter clump together. Also if one object approaches another with enough tangential velocity in a specific range of directions, that object will be caught in the orbit of the other.

The way that gravity acts on two objects with specific velocities, accelerations, masses, and directions, to cause orbits is the reason why we see objects in the universe orbit each other.

So you agree that there is structure and Law in the universe, and without intelligence can that be possible?

The universe with the arrangement it has now has not been around forever, however the matter in the universe came from energy, and the energy came from the singularity, and the singularity may have come from something else. So we don't see that the stuff in the universe was created out of nothing, it was just changed from another state, so the stuff in the universe may be timeless.

I agree, and you have put it better then i could explain. So as i said that the Material cause may have existed for eternity.

I am not 100% sure of that because of quantum mechanics, however, the ideas seems reasonable so I will agree.

Am not too familiar with the new theory of quantum mechanics, im stuck at the string theory.

So in the case of the star, the sufficient cause is the idea of gravity, and the efficient cause is the process of gravity making the star? I disagree with this definition of sufficient cause. Sufficient cause is not the idea of gravity (in this example), but rather gravity itself. When we refer to a cause we refer to a thing in the real world, not just an idea which may be true or false and does not cause stuff at all.

No, gravity is the efficient cause, the sufficient cause is the the Law that governs gravity.

Sorry about the straw-man. This is a deep discussion for me, I will try to make as few mistakes as possible.

Cudos

It is plausible that you can have a non-decaying God who makes a decaying universe.

But then its useless for that god to even exist after the universe has decayed, and it would not be smart of God to make a decaying universe when God itself if non decaying, i mean what will God do after the universe has gone?

To give my (religious) opinion,

There are 3 eternal entities, 1) OM (GOD), 2) Prakriti (Primordial Matter, strings, atoms the hole shabang) and 3) Atman (Souls).

and science has only so far acknowledged that number 2 could be eternal.

 

[shawn001]

"Am not too familiar with the new theory of quantum mechanics, im stuck at the string theory."

So you study string theory and am not familar with QM?

 

[Commoner]

...i mean what will God do after the universe has gone?

What after? The real question is what he was doing before he created it, taking his sweet non-time, mucking about - I bet! Someone really should tell him to buckle down and look at his priorities, we can't have billions of souls waiting in non-existence for him to get off his non-material couch.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

What after? The real question is what he was doing before he created it, taking his sweet non-time, mucking about - I bet! Someone really should tell him to buckle down and look at his priorities, we can't have billions of souls waiting in non-existence for him to get off his non-material couch.

Exactly my question, what was God doing before this creation?, that is if you take the biblical and Quranic creation in account that this all came from nothing

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I don't study string theory, just interested in scientific way of thinking, and its not against my religious beliefs.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well if time began to exist along with the universe, then there was no evidence of time when it didn't exist.

My point exactly. Time is a created entity that came into being simultaneously with the universe.

Agreed. But did that thing have to be God?

The cause of the universe have to be timeless, immaterial, and have the ability and power to freely create the universe from nothing. This attributes are absolutely NECESSARY and if you take out any one of those qualities nothing would be created. The only word in our dictionary that defines any being capable of having these attributes are God.

How do you know that natural laws don't work outside the universe. Maybe at least some of them do.

Nature laws cant work outside the universe because because natural law can only govern nature. Anything outside of the universe is not nature and therefore not bound by natural law.

 

[Commoner]

My point exactly. Time is a created entity that came into being simultaneously with the universe.



The cause of the universe have to be timeless, immaterial, and have the ability and power to freely create the universe from nothing. This attributes are absolutely NECESSARY and if you take out any one of those qualities nothing would be created. The only word in our dictionary that defines any being capable of having these attributes are God.

How is that not a paradox - to create something in the absence of time? I think what you're proposing isn't so much absolutely necessary as it is absolutely impossible.

Nature laws cant work outside the universe because because natural law can only govern nature. Anything outside of the universe is not nature and therefore not bound by natural law.

You know that's a tautology, right? "Natural" laws only govern nature and nature is that which is governed by natural law.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How is that not a paradox - to create something in the absence of time? I think what you're proposing isn't so much absolutely necessary as it is absolutely impossible.

It is not impossible. It is called simultaenous causation. God's decision to create the big bang was a decision for him to enter into temporal relations with the space-time universe. If a bowling ball is 3 feet above a cushion, and it has been there for eternity, and then it all of a sudden drops 3 feet on to the cushion, it is only at the moment that the ball started to drop that time began. And when it landed on the cushion it created an impression on cushion, being both the cause and effect of the impression and therefore creating the simulatenous cause and effect.

You know that's a tautology, right? "Natural" laws only govern nature and nature is that which is governed by natural law.

Semantics. However you slice the cake the fact still remains, natural laws cannot work outside the bounds of what is considered nature and that is the point that i was trying to make. A point that still stands.

 

[Commoner]

It is not impossible. It is called simultaenous causation. God's decision to create the big bang was a decision for him to enter into temporal relations with the space-time universe. If a bowling ball is 3 feet above a cushion, and it has been there for eternity, and then it all of a sudden drops 3 feet on to the cushion, it is only at the moment that the ball started to drop that time began. And when it landed on the cushion it created an impression on cushion, being both the cause and effect of the impression and therefore creating the simulatenous cause and effect.

How can you "decide" something - deciding is a process, you can't do it without time. Where exactly has this simultaneous causation been observed? I'll help you out - it hasn't been - as far as we know, there is no such thing. So the strenght of the argument of simultaneous causation is no greater than simply asserting that the universe did not have a cause or that it cause itself (you know, being the cause and the effect).

I don't really understand your example, if time began when the ball started to drop (for reasons unexplained, it would seem), the cause and the effect do not occur at the same time. It took time for the ball to drop 3 feet, it took time for enery to transfer (in order to create an indentation). I don't think you understood Kant's point if that's what you were going for. His point was that even if the ball was on the cushion for all eternity, we could still tell that the ball caused the indentation - so the argument has to do with the cause "preceeding" the effect even in the absence of time.

It is a compelling argument in the sense that it exploits our cause/effect way of thinking. There is, in fact, no good reason to think that such an eternal ball would make an indentation on the cushion rather than the indentation always having been there - as its "eternal" nature would imply. You visualize a ball on a cushion and your mind jumps to the effect you're used to seeing, so you assume it even in an example where time does not pass. You require time for the transfer of energy (making the dent), so either this is some different kind of thing altogether (in which case, we have no grounds for assuming anything) or the indentation was not caused by the ball and the argument does not work.

There's the rub, though, if you assume sim. causation, the cause does not have to come before the effect (neither in temporal terms, nor othrewise - or at least, Kant, I think, didn't show that). Therefore there is no reason to think that the universe did not create itself and is also the effect.

Semantics. However you slice the cake the fact still remains, natural laws cannot work outside the bounds of what is considered nature and that is the point that i was trying to make. A point that still stands.

No, it's the opposite of semantics, it does indeed matter. There is no reason to think that, because laws as we observe them apply to that which we observe (nature?), the same laws, or laws in general couldn't apply to anything else. You add nothing to this by saying they are "natural" laws (or in other words, they apply to everything we have observed) and so cannot use the tautology to establish that laws, outside of nature, do not apply. There is no way that could be established (by argument alone). An existence of a law outside nature which allows for "uncaused causes" or "self-caused causes" is just as plausible or implausible as any other analysis.

 

[9Westy9]

There's the rub, though, if you assume sim. causation, the cause does not have to come before the effect (neither in temporal terms, nor othrewise - or at least, Kant, I think, didn't show that). Therefore there is no reason to think that the universe did not create itself and is also the effect.

How can you have an effect without a cause happening before it?

 

[Commoner]

How can you have an effect without a cause happening before it?

How can a cause and an effect happen simultaneously? I don't know, I have no need to assume simultaneous causation is possible. Nor do I see how something can "happen before" something else in the absence of time. Why would you assume it can?

The use of "cause" and "effect" is essentially misleading in that case as it implies time. Take time away and all bets are off.

 

[9Westy9]

How can a cause and an effect happen simultaneously? I don't know, I have no need to assume simultaneous causation is possible. Nor do I see how something can "happen before" something else in the absence of time. Why would you assume it can?

The use of "cause" and "effect" is essentially misleading in that case as it implies time. Take time away and all bets are off.

oh okay. I agree with you

 

[shawn001]

I don't study string theory, just interested in scientific way of thinking, and its not against my religious beliefs.

Quantum mechanics,

Quantum mechanics: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

 

[shawn001]

Thanks for the reply Meow Mix.

However, if you "run the movie backwards" to Plank time, that is putting a lot of matter and space back into a very very small package it would seem?

Did you watch Hawkings curiosity show?

[youtube]WQhd05ZVYWg[/youtube]
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? - YouTube



This is also very good.

Watch video of the Seyfert Lecture featuring Dr. Paul J. Steinhardt, the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University.

Steinhardt, who is also on the faculty of both the Department of Physics and the Department of Astrophysical Sciences, spoke at Vanderbilt March 17, 2011. He is the author of over 200 refereed articles, six patents, and three technical books. In 2007, co-authored Endless Universe: The Big Bang and Beyond, a popular book on contemporary theories of cosmology.

This talk introduces an alternative to the standard big bang model that challenges conventional ideas about space, time and the evolution of the universe.


[youtube]IcxptIJS7kQ[/youtube]
Inflationary cosmology on trial - YouTube

The hawking video shows exactly how you can create a universe out of nothing and with no god involved.