Cosmological Argument?

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

Some had sent me an email stating this:

But there are several reasons to think the universe is not eternal, and thus cannot be that which has always existed. One such example is the thermodynamic properties of the universe. The energy in the universe is finite and increasing toward entropy. If the universe were infinitely old, we would have reached a state of entropy an infinite time ago. And yet we have not reached a state of entropy, therefore the universe is not infinitely old. It began to exist a finite time ago.

If the universe has not always existed, what has? Given the maxim that every effect requires an adequate cause, and nothing is self-caused, that which has always existed must be the causal explanation for the universe coming into being a finite time ago. What could have done so? Given that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material, we are limited to two possibilities: abstract objects, or an unembodied mind.

Since abstract objects are causally impotent by definition, they cannot be the cause of the universe, and thus are unlikely to be that which has always existed. That leaves us with an unembodied mind as the eternal something. This makes sense. Not only are we are intimately acquainted with the idea of minds creating things, but it also makes sense of the design and order we see in the universe. An intelligent agent is best explains why the universe is as it is.

Since an eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, intelligent mind is what most mean by “God,” it is best to conclude that God is that which has always existed. He is a necessary being, who contains within Himself the sufficient cause for His own existence, as well as the existence of everything else.

I am not familiar with cosmological argumets like this. What would you guys say in response?

Thanks

2

The standard big-bang model in physics has the big bang occuring at a finite time in the past, and it doesnt appeal to any dubious notions about entropy or whatever, nor does it imply that a god exists.

Asking ‘what happened before the big-bang’ seems to be based on a Newtonian intuition about ‘time’ though, snce it seems to assume that ‘time’ is something both objectively existing and universal, which could be measured by some kind of clock existing outside the universe, and this just isnt true in general relativity. ‘Time’ acts in very strange ways in the presence of large gravitational forces, such as those present at the moment of the big bang where all the matter in the universe is theorised to have been ‘scrunched’ up into a tiny region with essentially infinite density. Its very difficult to even ask the question in a meaningful way, and unless a person has studied a great deal of theoretical physics (which I havent) then anything they say on the matter is likely to be wrong/nonsense (like this post!)

Physics is hard, and making definitive claims about what ‘must’ be the case when you havent studied it is extremely arrogant and silly. Tell your friend to read the Bible less and a buy a book on relativity/cosmology instead.

edit: although if you leave aside the technical physics part of the question (which are the most interesting imo) then all the standard objections to the cosmological argument apply. If the universe means ‘everything that exists’ then that includes god/supernatural minds/whatever so saying that these things were present ‘before’ the big bang is self-contradictory. If ‘everything requires a cause’ then that means the unembodied mind also requires a cause and cant be self-sustaining. If the ‘mind’ is entirely disembodied then theres no known mechanism by which it can interact with physical reality. And so on.

3

Whoever sent that to you is displaying a very elementary, immature, and distorted knowledge of physics and cosmology.

4

Some had sent me an email stating this:

But there are several reasons to think the universe is not eternal, and thus cannot be that which has always existed. One such example is the thermodynamic properties of the universe. The energy in the universe is finite and increasing toward entropy. If the universe were infinitely old, we would have reached a state of entropy an infinite time ago.

Just as an example of how wrong this is. There is a limited amount of energy in the Universe, true, if the Universe is closed. But energy cannot be created or destroyed, only tranformed. Entropy refers to disorder and unusable energy in closed systems. Sometimes energy dissipates and becomes to dillute to use. Suppose the universe were composed entirely of one room with one person, some candles and one match, and noting else. You can strike the match, thereby using up the chemical energy stored in it to light a candle. As the candle burns up, you can use it to light another candle, and so on until you run out of candles.

Now, the energy content of that one-room universe will always be the same. But once the last candle burns up all the available energy has been transformes, as per the laws of thermodynamics, into dissipated heat. It’s all still there, but you can’t make use of it anymore. Earlier in the one-room universe’s existence you might have used the heat from, say, five candles, to reconstitute a melted one. But as making a candle takes up more energy than it puts out, you can only stretch the usability of energy. eventually you run out of candles and will thence exist in perpetual darkness among uniform temperature. That’s the one-room’s universe version of full entropy.

So, yes, a closed universe will eventually reach full entropy and change, and life, within it will cease. Fine. But it will continue to exist in that state indefinitely, perhaps for eternity. Nevertheless, there is a long period where change, and life, are possible. If the Universe is infinite and eternal, then we live in that period. We couldn’t exist at all in the full entropy period, therefore we couldn’t have evolved into our current state then.

In addition we don’t know all there is to know about the Universe, and that includes physics. It may be possible that full entropy is not a permanent state. It may be the Universe isn’t a closed system. The classic laws of thermodynamics don’t take, as far as I know, things like dark matter and dark energy into account.

5

Since an eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, intelligent mind is what most mean by “God,” it is best to conclude that God is that which has always existed.

That’s a joke of a conclusion, basically saying “I don’t know, so God did it” - the God of the gaps. They don’t understand the beginnings of the universe (nobody does yet), so they apply the current understanding to the beginning of the universe, arrive at these problems, and conclude that therefore, because there are problems, the only solution is God. However, that is not the only possibility. They assume that our current understanding is the best it’ll ever get. Another possibility is to increase our understanding until the point that such problems as they cite will no longer come about. That is how all the gods of all the gaps in evolutionary understanding - collectively labeled “Intelligent Design” - are being destroyed by advances in evolutionary biology and biochemistry.

Aside from that, they also have not explained 1) why something material must have an origin, but something immaterial need not, and 2) how something can be intelligent but immaterial and non-spatial.

In short, they have explained exactly nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

6

The universe is described as eternal because of the impossibility of applying an external frame of reference. There is no place to stand with your stop watch while waiting to start it at the instant of the big bang. Projecting time backward to before the beginning makes as much sense as trying to get outside the universe by plotting a course through space.

Since abstract objects are causally impotent by definition, they cannot be the cause of the universe, and thus are unlikely to be that which has always existed. That leaves us with an unembodied mind as the eternal something.

An unembodied mind is every bit as much of an abstraction as an ‘abstract object’. An unembodied mind is an example of an ‘abstract object’. An unembodied mind is causally impotent.

7

An unembodied mind is causally impotent.

It’s more than that; it is a metaphysical impossiblility. How could something that has no physical identity be said to possess identity. Not to mention that a “consciousness” with nothing existing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms.

8

I wrote a one minute case against the cosmological argument.

9

Some had sent me an email stating this:

But there are several reasons to think the universe is not eternal, and thus cannot be that which has always existed. One such example is the thermodynamic properties of the universe. The energy in the universe is finite and increasing toward entropy. If the universe were infinitely old, we would have reached a state of entropy an infinite time ago. And yet we have not reached a state of entropy, therefore the universe is not infinitely old. It began to exist a finite time ago.

If the universe has not always existed, what has? Given the maxim that every effect requires an adequate cause, and nothing is self-caused, that which has always existed must be the causal explanation for the universe coming into being a finite time ago. What could have done so? Given that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material, we are limited to two possibilities: abstract objects, or an unembodied mind.

Since abstract objects are causally impotent by definition, they cannot be the cause of the universe, and thus are unlikely to be that which has always existed. That leaves us with an unembodied mind as the eternal something. This makes sense. Not only are we are intimately acquainted with the idea of minds creating things, but it also makes sense of the design and order we see in the universe. An intelligent agent is best explains why the universe is as it is.

Since an eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, intelligent mind is what most mean by “God,” it is best to conclude that God is that which has always existed. He is a necessary being, who contains within Himself the sufficient cause for His own existence, as well as the existence of everything else.

I am not familiar with cosmological argumets like this. What would you guys say in response?

Thanks

This is basically Craig’s Kalam. It’s been beaten up and down the internet for years. You can find philosophers’ debates on it on the secular web if you’re looking for sophisticated objections: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the…ml#Cosmological

His inference from the existence of entropy to “[the universe] began to exist a finite time ago” is sloppy. He has not considered that the universe may have existed for a finite amount of time, without beginning to exist. That would be the case if the universe existed at each point in time, and there have only been a finite number of time points. I’m not saying I can prove that this is an accurate account of what happened, only that he must rule it out to clinch a deductive argument like this.

“Every effect requires an adequate cause.” True by definition, but he has yet to show that the universe is an “effect”.

“We are intimately acquainted with the idea of minds creating things” We may be familiar with our minds causing actions and thoughts, but this is a far cry from creating entire universes out of nothing. So far as anyone can tell, minds only manipulate that which already exists. It doesn’t look like they have the ability to create ex nihilo. They are no better equipped to create the universe than abstract objects are.

“Eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, intelligent mind.” (1) Thoughts as we know them take time, and occur at specific times. He needs to explain how thought is possible outside time. (2) He needs to explain how an immaterial thing could have any effect on the material world. (3) He needs to explain how a mind could be intelligent without anything external to be aware of, as would be the case if there were no universe to perceive. (4) He needs to explain how this mind could be intelligent without a means of perception - or, if it does have a means of perception, what that means could be.