Christian historian Dr. Wallace Marshall and I are debating whether or not enough evidence points to the existence of a god. For background and format, and Dr. Wallace’s opening statement, see entry one. For subsequent entries, see index.
For now we are still focusing on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, now in response to my third reply.
That the Evidence Points to God (IV)
by Wallace Marshall, Ph.D.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument centers on the truth of two premises being more plausible than not: (1) that the universe—matter, space, time and energy—had a beginning in the finite past; and (2) that if this is the case, the universe had a cause, a cause that in the nature of the case must be immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and immensely powerful.
In both of my previous entries (here and here), I have been very clear that the scientific evidence against a past-eternal universe applies regardless of whether our Big Bang was the first (single-verse), or was preceded by others (multiverse). I even pointed out, to underscore this point, that Vilenkin’s and Guth’s strong statements against a past-eternal universe come from scientists who themselves believe in a multiverse!
It is strange, therefore, to hear Dr. Carrier objecting that “our” Big bang may very well not have been the first. I have never claimed that it was, because that is immaterial to the argument. Vilenkin and Guth would surely look nonplussed if Carrier gave such a reply when they told him, “All the evidence says the universe had a beginning,” or “We’ve been able to prove, mathematically, that it’s in fact not possible to extrapolate arbitrarily far into the past.” Does he suppose they are that ignorant?
Dr. Carrier further objects that the BGV theorem relies on some undemonstrated assumptions. What of it? Much of physics does. Einstein’s theory of general relativity relies on the undemonstrated assumption that the speed of light is constant in both directions (we can only measure its round-trip velocity). Indeed, one would be hard pressed to identify any cosmological model that does not rely partly on undemonstrated assumptions.
Dr. Carrier’s complaint that the BGV “ignores quantum gravity” reveals his misunderstanding of theoretical physics. Physicists as yet have no theory of quantum gravity, so of course every cosmogonical theory is developed with an awareness of that. Carrier’s complaint would invalidate the entire discipline of cosmogony!
Even so, the BGV theorem is independent of Einstein’s theory of gravity. As Vilenkin writes about the model he, Guth and Borde developed: “The remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality…. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold.”[1]
Dr. Carrier’s belief that because “Big Bangs have a non-zero probability” of resulting from an indeterminist quantum state, “a past eternal quantum model is actually more supported by current evidence than the BGV,” shows that he does not understand the BGV or the central problem that plagues such proposals. It is precisely because of this instability that quantum vacuums cannot be past-eternal. As physicists Anthony Aguirre and John Kehayias explain, “It is very difficult to devise a system—especially a quantum one—that does nothing ‘forever,’ then evolves. A truly stationary or periodic quantum state, which would last forever, would never evolve, whereas one with any instability will not endure for an indefinite time.”[2]
This leaves Dr. Carrier only with the hope that cosmologists are “exploring” past-eternal models, or that such models are “possible.” But again, what of it? As I argued in my previous rebuttal, only when such theories are amply demonstrated and gain broader acceptance can they be considered legitimate rivals to the consensus.
So, even if one demurs from the emphatic “All the evidence says the universe had a beginning,” a fair-minded inquirer should at least concede that the preponderance of current scientific evidence points to the universe (or multiverse) having a beginning in the finite past, regardless of how many past Big Bangs there may have been. Why not admit what is obviously the case, unless it is for fear of where the rest of the Kalam argument leads?
Regarding my first philosophical argument against an infinite past, Dr. Carrier has yet to explain how he would propose to avoid the absurdities entailed by the real-world instantiation of an infinite quantity. Even the atheist philosopher Graham Oppy, who has written a great deal on this problem and whom Carrier cites with approval, has conceded that the actual existence of infinities entails a “huge range of difficulties … puzzles and paradoxes” that it is “hard to see” how we can “make our peace” with. Indeed, Oppy’s response to these quandaries is to bite the bullet and declare that “these allegedly absurd situations are just what one ought to expect if there were … physical infinities”[3]—which is simply to admit the force of the argument!
Dr. Carrier corresponds privately with atheist mathematician Herb Silverman and says Silverman told him, “There might have been infinitely many big bangs and big crunches.” But oddly, Carrier doesn’t say how Silverman replied when Carrier asked him (as one charitably assumes Carrier would) how Silverman reconciles this with what he told the Secular Crusader when he wasn’t thinking about how to answer the Kalam: “The most important lesson I learned was that infinity is a theoretical construct created by humans, and that the number ‘infinity’ does not exist in reality.”[4]
To my second philosophical argument against an infinite past, Dr. Carrier responds that “actual infinities’ existence in no way depends on their being counted or added up.” Of course—because they cannot be! And that is precisely the problem here, because if the past is infinite, it is a time series formed by adding one member after another; but it seems absurd, for the reasons I gave, to suppose that such a series could be formed and it still be ‘now’ now, or indeed at any time along the entire series.
To my four arguments in favor of the causal principle, Dr. Carrier has yet to explain his hypothesis of a “lawless minimum state” he claimed allowed him to avoid those arguments.
He also declines to say whether “structural” means “physical” when he wrote, “Causal laws cannot exist in the absence of a structural cause of such laws.”
Finally, Dr. Carrier doubles down on his question-begging assertion that a thing cannot exist in the absence of space and time. Indeed, he now claims this is not merely metaphysically but “logically impossible”! This is to further beg a huge philosophical question about the ontology of mathematical objects, to say nothing of the existence of God or the soul.
As Kant pointed out long ago, there is nothing incoherent about simultaneous causation.[5] Indeed, some philosophers argue that all causation is simultaneous because the beginning of any effect will coincide temporally with the beginning of its cause.[6]
-:-
Such is Dr. Marshall’s latest response.
Continue on to Dr. Carrier’s reply.
-:-
Endnotes
[1] Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Macmillan, 2006), 175 (emphasis mine).
[2] Anthony Aguirre and John Kehayias, “Quantum Instability of the Emergent Universe,” 13 June 2013, rev. 19 Nov 2013. http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3232
[3] Graham Oppy, Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 294-95, 48.
[4] Laura Paull, “South Carolina’s Secular Crusader,” Tablet Magazine, 21 June 2012. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/103669/south-carolinas-secular-crusader?all=1 Accessed 9/18/2012. I’m not in favor of introducing private correspondences into public debate, but for what it’s worth, I know Silverman personally (we live in the same town and see each other regularly) and have pressed him with this very problem and never received a direct answer.
[5] Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Norman Kemp Smith (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1965), A203/B248 (pp. 227-28).
[6] See, e.g., Michael Huemer and Ben Covitz, “Causation as Simultaneous and Continuous,” The Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 213 (Oct. 2003): 556-65.
Marshall says: “Physicists as yet have no theory of quantum gravity”
Doesn’t string theory unify general relativity and quantum gravity?
Marshall says: “A truly stationary or periodic quantum state, which would last forever, would never evolve, whereas one with any instability will not endure for an indefinite time”
Maybe an unstable quantum state lasted long enough to create a universe. Or maybe like everything else, quantum states die and are reborn.
Marshall says: “This leaves Dr. Carrier only with the hope that cosmologists are “exploring” past-eternal models, or that such models are “possible.””
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
Marshall says: “Why not admit what is obviously the case, unless it is for fear of where the rest of the Kalam argument leads?”
Of all the theories you mention, the Kalam qualifies most for this statement: “not even wrong.”
Marshall says: “To my second philosophical argument against an infinite past”
This seems to go against your argument for your god. If there’s not an infinite past then your god had to be created. So what was the cause for God? But of course, of all the arguments presented none of them applies to your god.
Dr. Marshall quotes so many people in arguing his point (God). I can assure him that all the experts he’s quoting, most if not all, will disagree with the point he is trying make.
“Doesn’t string theory unify general relativity and quantum gravity?”
Maybe, isn’t it still pretty ill formed and under development? I’m not very well versed on string theory, but I was under the impression it was still in a developmental stage.
“Maybe an unstable quantum state lasted long enough to create a universe. Or maybe like everything else, quantum states die and are reborn.”
What “everything else” are you referring to here? To my knowledge, most of the universe moves in a linear pattern. Most things die and stay dead, no?
“https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html”
I’m not a mathematician, physicist, etc. My doctoral degree is in physical therapy, so I’m a bit out of my depth here. I’ve seen follow up papers agreeing, and others criticizing this article. Given my ineptitude in this field, I have to take it on “faith” (haha) that the authors aren’t making mistakes, and that’s reliant on the general agreement of other scientists which I haven’t found. So… Maybe?
“Of all the theories you mention, the Kalam qualifies most for this statement: ‘not even wrong.'”
Seems more of an insult than a well thought out or reasoned response. Doesn’t really add much, I’m guessing you’re venting frustration here?
“But of course, of all the arguments presented none of them applies to your god.”
I think (though I may be mistaken, or oversimplifying) the argument he’s making is essentially, “the first thing, the uncaused cause, we are defining God as that.” At which point, if there’s consensus that there is a cause with no cause, the argument would then turn to debating the characteristics of this “Uncaused” figure (ie, timeless, all powerful, intelligent, etc). I don’t think a Christian would say the Kalam was an argument for “his” God given the argument’s islamic origins.
“Dr. Marshall quotes so many people in arguing his point (God). I can assure him that all the experts he’s quoting, most if not all, will disagree with the point he is trying make.”
That might be the point though right? If I use my opponents arguments as supporting points for my argument, he’s less likely to attack my supporting points (given that he previously agreed to them). If he used arguments from the Bible, or even from creationists and Christian philosphers, an atheist would be much more dismissive.
Just some thoughts.
Dr. Marshall
Concerning this statement:
“The Kalam Cosmological Argument centers on the truth of two premises being more plausible than not: (1) that the universe—matter, space, time and energy—had a beginning in the finite past”.
Response: More recent scientific evidence suggests that is not the case (after all). Please review the article below and advise as to how this is not a valid scientific finding or why it should not lead to the stated conclusion.
The Big Bang Wasn’t The Beginning, After All
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/#6a76dd0255df
Note, ou812invu, Dr. Marshall has conceded the Big Bang was likely enough not the first but just one at the end of an extremely long line of previous once. He is arguing that even that string of previous Bangs is still finite (and it well could be).
Marshall trips a bit over confusing the phrase “our universe” with that multiverse, so his statements have been confusing, but I think he has clarified enough by now to understand that he means not that our Big Bang proves time had a beginning, but that the BGV theorem does, even granting that the BGV theorem entails a nearly endless multiverse prior to ours (as it does).
The question then is whether the BGV theorem is actually a correct description of reality. Which is a separate question. We know it really can’t be, because it ignores quantum mechanics, and we know quantum mechanics describes reality, and entails conditions that would nullify the BGV theorem. Guth and Vilenkin do admit this when pressed; I’ll show the significance of this in my next reply.
So just to be sure, Dr. Marshall believes that the BGV theorem establishes that time and the universe had the same beginning. And the beginning of any universe, including those other than the one we are aware of, qualifies as “The universe began to exist” as required by the KCA.
In the debate “God and Cosmology” between Sean Carroll and WLC uploaded on the ReasonableFaithOrg channel:
Time marked beginning at1 hour 5 minutes, Sean Carroll shows a video of Alan Guth himself saying that he thinks “the universe is likely eternal, but nobody knows”
So it is simply not true when Wallace says:
Vilenkin and Guth would surely look nonplussed if Carrier gave such a reply when they told him, “All the evidence says the universe had a beginning”
Which direction Time goes ? Can you point it out with your finger? Is it a 4 th dimension orthogonal to 3 other spatial dimensions which creates a metaphysical entity called Space-Time? Time is simply the measure of rate of movement compare to an other movement (a clock)…There is no Absolute Time like there is no Absolute Movement . The theory of Big Bang try to prove exactly the opposite i.e.that there is in fact one movement that started in a remote past from one singularity but that theory is loosing ground and being disproved by a lot of new observations. So if you don’t have an absolute universal standard movement that you can compare with then the question of infinite regression becomes irrelevant.
Dr. Marshall Wrote:
It is strange, therefore, to hear Dr. Carrier objecting that “our” Big bang may very well not have been the first. I have never claimed that it was, because that is immaterial to the argument.
Response: If find your above statement even more strange as you’ve indicated that space and time came into existence with our universe (initiated by our Big Bang). So now your suggesting that it is possible that (our Big Bang) wasn’t necessarily when space and time first came into existence? Either that or you’re suggesting that all other Big Bangs would have created a universe that did not consist of space and time. Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
Another interesting reply. Dr. Marshall, could you help me clarify something based on these exchanges?
Consider:
(A) For everything that begins to exist, there is a cause for that existence.
(B) For everything that begins to exist, there is a time before which the thing did not exist and a time after which the thing does exist.
(C) For everything that begins to exist, there is some spacial location in which the thing begins to exist.
I think if we limit our scope to within the spacetime of our local universe, we could agree A, B, and C are all true, or at least inductively true based on our observations. There are some events (virtual particle existence, atomic decay) which seem to contradict A, but it’s salvageable depending on definitions.
Now, if we extend our scope outside the spacetime of our local universe, you then reject B and C, but hold to A. What is the difference between those inductive arguments around causation? I can come up with a few ideas, but I feel they end in fallacious reasoning. Help me escape that issue.
(1) I could appeal to all 3 being true inductively. Then when I step outside the universe I could reject B (as there may not be time outside of our universe). I could also reject C (as there may not be space outside of our universe). This initially feels reasonable, but it is actually special pleading. If my goal is to demonstrate A, then I find I haven’t, because my inductive observations of A have only ever existed in conjunction with B and C. I would have no observation which could tell me that A is not predicated on B and C, or that A does not fall to the same scope as B and C (as I am making an inductive argument, I can’t simply ignore inductive entailment).
(2) I could claim that B and C are inductively true within local spacetime, but that A is a logical necessity. But, there’s no demonstrable argument that can be made for A that wouldn’t also apply to B and C (all demonstrations would necessarily exist within our local spacetime). Thus choosing A would be special pleading.
(3) I could claim A is true by the impossibility of the contrary, but this would require demonstration or some reductio ad absurdum. Saying that it requires no demonstration (that it is a brute fact) is truly begging the question, especially in light of the data that it does not appear universally true even within our spacetime (see Virtual Particles and Atomic Decay). And ex nihilio nihil fit is not a reductio (it’s really just an assertion to a brute fact). One would also need to show that their demonstration/reductio could not also be applied to B and C
What am I missing here? Anything that would instantiate A would also seem to instantiate B and C. Anything that would differentiate A from B and C seems to be special pleading or begging the question.
Note: If Dr. Carrier could explain where my logic goes wrong, I would equally be appreciative. My issues need not all stand for his formal replies to be accurate.
Dr. Marshall,
Kant and other philosophers may argue that simultaneous cause and effect are logically possible and, indeed, quite common. The idea of simultaneity is pretty much dead in modern physics however. I would argue so far as to say that it’s actually impossible in a relativistic universe. If we have simultaneous cause and effect there is a big problem, because it would also require that the action of causes can traverse faster than the speed of light. This is not going to work.
Benjamin C.– While it’s true that causes must generally precede their effects in time because causes can’t travel faster than the speed of light (“FTL”), it’s incorrect that the idea of simultaneous causation is “dead in modern physics.”
This is because simultaneous causation doesn’t require FTL communication if it involves the same spatial location as well as the same time. That is the case, for example, in the Lorentz Force Law, where the charged particle and the field affecting it are at the same spatial point.
And when one thinks about the first “instant” of time and space coming into existence, where else would the cause be (as physically manifested, anyway) except at the same time and spatial point?
The springing into existence of space, time, and all physical reality would at any rate be a sui generis event, and so it would be silly to rule out that event having a cause on the basis of a causation principle governing events IN the physical world thus produced, especially as the cause—whatever it is—would in the very nature of the case be a time-transcendent cause (since whatever it is brought time into being).
Presumably the ’cause’ is the WURD (jesus?) / Jesus’ BRETH?
Sams 33.6
By the LORD’s cummand the hevns/sky were made; by a WURD, by the BRETH from his mouth all the stars in the sky were creatid.
so Jesus PUFT the univurs intu being?
Alif, the word PUFT (or puffed) is not in scripture. You invent things, distort and try to confuse as others on this forum do. Since you speak more than one language “you should know” that the Hebrew writers (especially a few thousand years ago) would describe things differently than Arabs, English speakers and people from other countries and at different times. Perhaps this is why Dr Carrier has difficulty understanding you as he also has difficulty with Greek since he has no real experience with Greek writing styles or context. The Hebrew writers wouldn’t have insight as to how, scientifically or efficiently, God would create. Notice, however, that even back then they realized there needed to be a cause for reality as they understood it. At least grant them that.
William Olson is lying when he says I “have no real experience with Greek writing styles or context.” It’s always amusing to see Christiana violating their own Ten Commandments.
I have a minor in Classics from UC Berkeley including two years of Greek literary translation, including Classical and Hellenistic Greek, and New Testament; a year of graduate level Greek papyrology at Columbia University under renowned papyrologist Roger Bagnall; half a year of Ancient Greek Linguistics there as well, another half year of Greek and Latin paleography and textual criticism, and three years of specialized training in Koine Greek at the graduate level, with special emphasis on Plutarch, Josephus, and several other ancient authors, including several Church fathers like Celsus, Irenaeus, and Origen.
Liars who dislike my conclusions like to claim I don’t know things in fact I know very well. Although even experts can err from time to time, so I’m open to being corrected on something, but these dishonest people have so far never produced any actual examples of my failing at these skills. Needless to say, I doubt William Olsen himself has years of graduate level training in Ancient Greek as I do. Nevertheless, let’s see him produce an example of my supposedly getting ancient Greek wrong. Or he can GTFO.
I think u’r being unfair. the hebrew wurd ruach רוּחַ (Strongs’ 7307) is the direct cognat of the arabic ‘ru:ẖ’ روح (Lane’s Lexicon p1177) with a similar semantic range incl breth, spirit and related ideas eg rēẖ means ‘wind’.
“The resonance between this Qur’anic usage of ruh and parallel Biblical usage of the Hebrew term ruach is dazzling. ”
https://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2008/10/ruh-and-nafs-ruach-and-nefesh.html
Incidently, in the 1970s an American Jewish band cald ‘Ruach’ did a takoff song cald “Puff the Kosher Dragon”.
‘Puff’ is not in scripture? Nor is ‘wind’ or ‘breth’ which are translations. And ‘puff’ is a type of breth includid in ‘ruach’ – which can also mean a ‘blast of air’ etc.
Insted of traducing/slandring pepl (Dr Carrier can ably ansr for himself) why not inlighten us as t what the Hebrew writers really did mean’ ?
And those bronz age middl eastrn folk realised a lot of things ‘back then’ – some true most false. And cudn’t yahweh/jesus cummunicate/inspire them effectivly?
Jesus must’v been wasting his breth.
so t speak.
Puffed has quite a different tone than breath and spirit in this context. But the point is that the phrase in general is conveying that God created and the way it’s expressed is a bit metaphoric. It sounded like you thought it was strange that the creator created the universe and stars with a puff (or breath) when the point is simply that it was His “will” that He creates.
no wun ixplains the ixistunt’v the material that leads t the big bang ie spacetime ixpansiun.
but evrywun seems t discribe it as ‘infinitly dens; infinitly hot’ –
Isn’t that an actual infinity?
A fresh breth:
the gospel’v john represents a new jenesis:
John 20:22
And when he [jesus] had said this, he BREATH’d on them, and said unto them, Receiv ye the Holy Spirit:
Here, the creation is renew’d thru jesus’ BRETH – just as it was creatid firstof in jenesis/sams when there was formlessness and void.
I suppose this breth is real and the cause’v a new creation?
In backreaction, Sabine Hossenfelder’s blog, comments in the post titled “Quantum Mechanics is wrong. There I’ve said it.”:
” Of course you can create particles that persist. Particle number is not a conserved quantity. Every proton-proton collision at the LHC creates a large number of particles from the energy of the collision. What you cannot do is create particles from vacuum. (At least not if space-time is flat. You can if it is curved or expanding, eg near a black hole or in the early universe.)”
This is a distinction that has not been made in this discussion, that I can find. Are these things (vacuum and curved spacetime) co-dependent? Meaning, do you need both to be present to create a universe, whether it’s ours, or some other universe, or even the very first universe, if that’s an option. It doesn’t seem a perfect Mind could be responsible for such thing because the Mind would have to think two thoughts simultaneously (vacuum and spacetime). That would be a divided, imperfect thought, and therefore not capable of creating anything.
I know I’m asking from the bleachers here, but I was immediately struck by Sabine’s comment. All the while I’ve been reading this debate between Dr. Carrier and Dr. Marshall I’ve been associating “vacuum” with the space around us, which is (apparently) flat.
Also, I get that Herb Silverman at one point said, ““The most important lesson I learned was that infinity is a theoretical construct created by humans, and that the number ‘infinity’ does not exist in reality.”, but the linked article stresses that he said that in a period of early adolescent musing. Did Silverman, as an adult professional mathematician, prove that in any way?
Note, Silverman was talking about infinity being a number, in the sense of being located on a number line (which is correct: it is not), not about whether infinite quantities can exist. Marshall has misunderstood the sentence and what it was saying. Which was already clear to me because I know enough number theory to have understood that sentence readily; but to be sure, I confirmed it with Silverman himself.
MBENSON- As you noted in your quotation, Herb Silverman refers to this as “the most important lesson he learned” in his early mathematical education, not a mistake or “musing” from his early years.
Indeed, Silverman told me that one of the conclusions he derived from this was that God, since he is infinite, must not exist! This was (as I told him then) to confuse a qualitative with a quantitative infinite. I don’t know if Silverman wrote on this issue as a professional mathematician. I’ll ask next time I see him.
It’s important to note, however, that anti-infinity arguments don’t revolve so much around mathematical concepts, but rather around philosophical considerations of (1) whether various absurdities would result from the instantiation of an actual infinite; and (2) if so, whether it is more reasonable to (a) just “bite the bullet” and believe that said absurdities could obtain, or (b) conclude that actual infinities can’t or probably can’t be instantiated.
I hope we moved past this kalam argument in the latest rounds. The premise is simply false. (1) that the universe—matter, space, time and energy—had a beginning in the finite past; It is false to claim it is more probable than not. Given that this idea of a beginning is contingent of our observation of the current state of the universe, it cannot be construed as probable in the quantum state preceding the big bang. The fact that it could be probable if the birth of the universe or multiverse was to occur now is irrelevant to the discussion.