BearWithMe said:
Quote:
Hello again BearWithMe. Your question is not illogical at all. In answering your previous comment, I wanted to refine the contingency/cosmological argument you were referring to using William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument, because I believe it is much better suited to answer your first objection regarding self-contradiction. The time component (temporal beginning) in the Kalam argument qualitatively distinguishes God from the universe thus enabling a resolution of the contradiction.
Thank you for your perceptive reply! While I appreciate the Kalam Cosmological Argument's structure, its primary premise - that everything that begins to exist has a cause - isn't self-evident. However, even if we accept that the universe had a beginning, it doesn't necessitate a supernatural cause or a deity. A natural process, yet to be fully understood, could account for the universe's existence.
Quote:
But you are correct in pointing out that the truth of the premise that the universe had a beginning is debatable because we can't be completely certain. However, I disagree with your statement that "the most correct answer to the question is 'I don't know.'" Current scientific empirical data, mathematics, and thermodynamics support only those theories and models of the universe which point to a cosmic beginning. Models which propose a universe without a beginning are very abstract and have no empirical support. Also, they've been proven to be impossible according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. Your favorite physicist, Sean Carroll, proposes that our universe arose from pure empty space, where quantum fluctuations were able to initiate the Big Bang which originated the space-time of our universe as we know it. But in this sense, there was still a "beginning" to our universe. The idea of the universe being "eternal" or having no "beginning" here is merely saying that there existed something that did not resemble our universe, but preceded our universe and subsequently gave rise to our universe, NOT that our universe didn't actually have a "beginning". (Interestingly, here you now have a problem of infinite regress, which was one of your objections to the contingency argument.) So I think the most correct answer to the question of whether the universe began to exist, is not "I don't know" but rather "we aren't fully certain, but current knowledge and evidence point to it being so."
While the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does suggest a boundary to inflationary models, it doesn't necessarily dictate the nature of that boundary or equate it to the universe's 'beginning.' Sean Carroll's propositions also support the idea of our universe's evolution from a different state, rather than a traditional 'beginning'. While infinite regress can be a philosophical quagmire, our universe's nature might not conform to human intuitions or constructs.
Yes, it is very, very problematic to base any arguments of reality on the concept of infinity. So obviously, there are philosophical arguments against an eternally existing universe. William Lane Craig has laid these out best. I can only outline it here. The principle is that an infinite number of actual "things" can not exist in reality, but only conceptually, i.e. as an idea in the mind. If the universe is eternal and had no beginning, then it means there exists an actual infinite number of past events - which can not exist in reality, therefore it does not exist.
The concept is based on the difference between an
actual infinite number of things, and a
potential infinite number of things. While the
potential for infinity can exist in reality, the actuality of it can not. For example, if time begins at point x and never stops after that, then there exists the
potential for an infinite number of time units, e.g. seconds, minutes, days. However, an
actual infinite number of time units can never be realized. It can only be approached, but never fully reached. If you look at it as a number "set", which includes all the time units, then the set is never complete. But this kind of infinity can exist in reality because it is only conceptual, i.e. it is a
potential infinite number of things. However, if the number of
past events is infinite, it means the set IS complete, because the number of past events ends at the current time. Thus, this set would contain an
actual infinite number of things, which is absurd and can not exist in reality. William Lane Craig further explains the logical absurdity of an actual infinite number of things, but to prevent a long essay, I won't get into it here. The overall conclusion is that since there can not exist in reality an actual infinite number of things, the universe must have had a beginning.
Your last sentence, "
While infinite regress can be a philosophical quagmire, our universe's nature might not conform to human intuitions or constructs" is what's really interesting. It highlights the conceptual problem of dealing with this kind of debate/discussion. What is it meant by "beginning" or "begin to exist"? It can be argued that if the universe at one point "existed" in a form that is outside of our human constructs of understanding, then it means that form was of a completely different nature and therefore can not be considered to be the same as our universe. Rather, something "caused" the non-understandable form to become the understandable form. In this sense, there is a "beginning" to the universe and the Kalam Cosmological argument readily applies. To illustrate with another example, a person begins to exist at conception (let's say). You wouldn't argue that no, rather that person "began to exist" in the form of his father's sperm and his mother's egg, or even go farther and say that the person began to exist when atoms and molecules first started to form, and that the person is just an arrangement of that matter. Clearly, that person was NOT the sperm, egg, or the atoms and molecules that first formed in our universe.
The other interesting thing about your last sentence is how it sort of appeals to a suspension of belief. If it is plausible that something can exist that is outside of our understanding, rationality, and one's own intuition (which can be biased, correct?) then one can invoke this same appeal to a belief in an intelligent supreme Being. It is quite ironic how some atheists (not necesssarily you) malign the belief in God for this very same kind of suspension of reason, rationality, and intuition when they have to do the exact same thing to believe in an eternal, beginningless universe to negate the possibility of a God.
