Either God or an eternal physical reality

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
If there is not God (transcendent spiritual agent or mind who chose to bring about physical reality), then is not the only other option an eternal **physical **reality?

This could mean the observable Universe exists necessarily. It could also means that, if our Universe really did have a beginning, then some other Universe or physical reality preceded ours.

For atheists, what reasons are there to think this a coherent explanation?

For Christians and other theists, what reasons are there to think this is incoherent or even impossible explanation?
 
Aquinas’ arguments do not assume any beginning to the universe. In fact, as a starting point, the arguments apply whether the universe is finite or infinite, in space or in time. Even in an eternal physical reality, the Five Ways argue for why the idea of such a universe is logically impossible without a metaphysically necessary being, which has certain known attributes, and which is what we call God.

Before we get caught up in the Five Ways, though, which get brought up a lot on these boards anyway, maybe we can get some other position statements made first.
 
catholic1seeks said:
If there is not God (transcendent spiritual agent or mind who chose to bring about physical reality), then is not the only other option an eternal **physical **reality?

This could mean the observable Universe exists necessarily. It could also means that, if our Universe really did have a beginning, then some other Universe or physical reality preceded ours.

For atheists, what reasons are there to think this a coherent explanation?

For Christians and other theists, what reasons are there to think this is incoherent or even impossible explanation?
Click to expand...
Interesting question about eternal physical reality. I don’t know if anyone understands what time is, except to relate it to some kind of decay, change, and possibly rebirth.
 
catholic1seeks said:
If there is not God (transcendent spiritual agent or mind who chose to bring about physical reality), then is not the only other option an eternal **physical **reality?

This could mean the observable Universe exists necessarily. It could also means that, if our Universe really did have a beginning, then some other Universe or physical reality preceded ours.

For atheists, what reasons are there to think this a coherent explanation?

For Christians and other theists, what reasons are there to think this is incoherent or even impossible explanation?
Click to expand...
The law of entropy does this one in. If the universe has existed eternally then it would have devolved into an incoherent mess an eternal amount of time ago. Instead, we find the universe to be quite ordered with a very low level of entropy. This suggests that, on a universal time scale, our universe is quite young.

Even if there had been other universes prior to ours, the law of entropy would still apply. An eternal string of universes would still succumb to entropy to the point that no more universes would be capable of forming.

This also still does not get beyond the fact that physical things cannot create themselves, and cannot come into existence out of nothing. If something exists, then there must be something outside of the physical reality which caused that thing to exist. That external cause it what we call God.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
The law of entropy does this one in. If the universe has existed eternally then it would have devolved into an incoherent mess an eternal amount of time ago. Instead, we find the universe to be quite ordered with a very low level of entropy. This suggests that, on a universal time scale, our universe is quite young.

Even if there had been other universes prior to ours, the law of entropy would still apply. An eternal string of universes would still succumb to entropy to the point that no more universes would be capable of forming.

This also still does not get beyond the fact that physical things cannot create themselves, and cannot come into existence out of nothing. If something exists, then there must be something outside of the physical reality which caused that thing to exist. That external cause it what we call God.
Click to expand...
How would we respond to those who say that the Universe “just is” – or exists necessarily. And our universe, which expresses the law of entropy, may just be a kind of universe that manifests a general, necessary physical state of existence?
 
Tomdstone said:
Why does the law of entropy have to apply to the multiverse as a whole? Perhaps there are other unseen factors which mitigate its influence on a universal scale.
Click to expand...
To claim that it isn’t applied equally in all potential universes is to assume something with no evidence for it, and plenty of observation against it. The law of Entropy is a foundational law, it applies to everything we understand about the physical universe. If we discard it to make assertions then we’ve left the realm of observation and logic and jumped right into the realm of baseless speculation.

(In reality, the entire concept of the multiverse lacks evidence. It’s a though problem for physicists, but it and of itself is not a good bases for any sort of logical judgment because there is no evidence, observational or otherwise, which validates belief in it.)
How would we respond to those who say that the Universe “just is” – or exists necessarily. And our universe, which expresses the law of entropy, may just be a kind of universe that manifests a general, necessary physical state of existence?
Click to expand...
You have have to prove that it is necessary for the universe to exist. The fact that it exists is not evidence enough for the assertion that it must exist. Like the universe, I exist, but it is not necessary that I exist. (I could just as easily not been conceived as conceived). This also would still require an explanation for the existence, as everything we know tells us that something physical which exists cannot come into existence without an external cause.

As with the above statement, if you start positing multiverses and varying underlying laws of physicals (such as the law of entropy) then you have moved into the realm of pure speculation, and have to assume that the fundamental properties of physics are not constant. If they are not constant then the entire study of physical reality (and therefore, science as a whole) becomes subjective, and can no longer actively inform us about existence as a whole.

Essentially, these types of arguments make a “science of the gaps” type arguments. It is putting faith in something without any observational or philosophical basis for that faith. Comically enough, this is what believers in scientism usually accuse Christians of doing.

Trent Horn’s new book, Answering Atheism, does a really good job of addressing the nature of necessary existence, and the fact that the universe does not exist necessarily. If you’re really interested in the subject I would definitely suggest picking up a copy of that book. It’s excellent, and very accessible even for people without deep philosophical and scientific backgrounds.
 
Tomdstone said:
The second law of thermodynamics only applies to systems with boundaries and surroundings. It applies within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole.
Click to expand...
If the universe exists as part of a larger system or collection of universes then it would be subject to the entropy of that system of universes.

Regardless, even if entropy only applies within the boundaries of the universe it doesn’t change the fact that an eternally-existing universe’s contents would have long since dissolved due to entropy. We are within the universe, and we are ordered, so we know that this hasn’t happened. As such, we know that the universe is not eternal.
 
catholic1seeks said:
If there is not God (transcendent spiritual agent or mind who chose to bring about physical reality), then is not the only other option an eternal **physical **reality?

This could mean the observable Universe exists necessarily. It could also means that, if our Universe really did have a beginning, then some other Universe or physical reality preceded ours.

For atheists, what reasons are there to think this a coherent explanation?

For Christians and other theists, what reasons are there to think this is incoherent or even impossible explanation?
Click to expand...
In another thread, the OP suggested that the principles of conservation of matter and energy seem to be enough foundation for the belief that the universe exists necessarily, and therefore eternally. Also, reflecting on the obstacle that the second law of thermodynamics seems to represent against the eternity of the world, he limited the scope of this law saying that our experience (on which this law is based) is limited as well. Perhaps there was a time when things did not behave according to such law. Perhaps there will be a future time when things will behave differently (who knows?).

So, the same limited experience would give rise, on the one side, to a limited in scope second law of thermodynamics and, on the other side, to universally applicable principles of conservation; all arbitrarily accommodated to make some people able to draw a desired conclusion. This is unacceptable.

Yours is another kind of reasoning: if something exists now, then something must have always existed; because nothing comes from nothing. Some individuals claim that there is a kind of “nothingness” (the “nothingness” of the scientists, not the nothingness of philosophers and theologians) from which matter is formed. This way, they pretend that this universe could have come from “nothing”, and that therefore, it is not necessary for the universe to have a cause; but this is just playing with words.

Here also you proceed in another fashion. You say: if this universe had a beginning then it had its origin in another previous physical reality. But, isn’t this conclusion, in the end, similar to the arbitrary idea that there was a time when the universe did not behave according to the current physical laws? What could have such physical reality been if not this same universe but behaving according to other different patterns? In the end, you would be claiming that this universe, with different behaviors in different times, is eternal, as the title of the thread says. This would be an eternally insufficient universe in which a rational being, able to develop a theory of statistics and many other interesting things, is accidentally produced. An eternally insufficient and absurd universe… Why should any explanation in such a universe need to be coherent at all?
 
JuanFlorencio said:
In another thread, the OP suggested that the principles of conservation of matter and energy seem to be enough foundation for the belief that the universe exists necessarily, and therefore eternally. Also, reflecting on the obstacle that the second law of thermodynamics seems to represent against the eternity of the world, he limited the scope of this law saying that our experience (on which this law is based) is limited as well. Perhaps there was a time when things did not behave according to such law. Perhaps there will be a future time when things will behave differently (who knows?).

So, the same limited experience would give rise, on the one side, to a limited in scope second law of thermodynamics and, on the other side, to universally applicable principles of conservation; all arbitrarily accommodated to make some people able to draw a desired conclusion. This is unacceptable.

Yours is another kind of reasoning: if something exists now, then something must have always existed; because nothing comes from nothing. Some individuals claim that there is a kind of “nothingness” (the “nothingness” of the scientists, not the nothingness of philosophers and theologians) from which matter is formed. This way, they pretend that this universe could have come from “nothing”, and that therefore, it is not necessary for the universe to have a cause; but this is just playing with words.

Here also you proceed in another fashion. You say: if this universe had a beginning then it had its origin in another previous physical reality. But, isn’t this conclusion, in the end, similar to the arbitrary idea that there was a time when the universe did not behave according to the current physical laws? What could have such physical reality been if not this same universe but behaving according to other different patterns? In the end, you would be claiming that this universe, with different behaviors in different times, is eternal, as the title of the thread says. This would be an eternally insufficient universe in which a rational being, able to develop a theory of statistics and many other interesting things, is accidentally produced. An eternally insufficient and absurd universe… Why should any explanation in such a universe need to be coherent at all?
Click to expand...
Assuming there was a Big Bang, some of the physical laws seen today were not the same at the first few instants of the Big Bang.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Based on which laws do you obtain your conclusion?
Click to expand...
For one, based on Noether’s theorem that conservation of energy is a consequence of invariance under time translations. At the instant of the singularity of the Big Bang, time symmetry would break down.
 
Tomdstone said:
For one, based on Noether’s theorem that conservation of energy is a consequence of invariance under time translations. At the instant of the singularity of the Big Bang, time symmetry would break down.
Click to expand...
Every theorem needs a demonstration. What are the premises for Noether’s theorem?
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Every theorem needs a demonstration. What are the premises for Noether’s theorem?
Click to expand...
The equations of motion, the Euler-Lagrange equations, which say that the rate of change of momentum equals the force. These can be derived from Newton’s Laws of motion.
 
The problem with saying the universe exists necessarily is that it doesn’t. The universe is composed of material things. Which means it is full of complexities and parts that require an explanation for how those parts came together. As well as these parts, just like anything composed of parts, can be arranged differently. It wasn’t absolutely necessary for instance for humans to have only 2 arms. They could have had a different arrangement like having 4 which would have allowed them to do more at once. I suspect that most atheists would not describe the universe as necessary or that it could not be any different. The fact is the universe is changing. So it must have an ultimate cause of this change. An unchanged changer.

Even if the universe was around for an infinite amount of time it still doesn’t make it necessary. Nor, would it mean it would not need a Creator. Think of a book resting on a table. If the table wasn’t there it would fall to the floor. It wouldn’t matter if the table and book were there for an infinite amount of time. The book is contingent on the table holding it up. Similarly, if the universe is contingent on God sustaining it’s existence, then it could not exist for any length of time, never mind infinite, if God did not sustain it in existence.

See youtu.be/hYfaOJATh_U
 
Tomdstone said:
The equations of motion, the Euler-Lagrange equations, which say that the rate of change of momentum equals the force. These can be derived from Newton’s Laws of motion.
Click to expand...
I had never seen Noether’s theorem. It is a very interesting mathematical development in theoretical physics. But it seems to me that this theorem by itself does not describe a change in the physical laws of the universe. I would say that you need another (name removed by moderator)ut, and I guess this would be a mathematical model of the Big Bang. You have mentioned “the singularity”, and I understand this refers to the Big Bang theory. I remember I saw some other cases of singularities in Physics and in Transfer Phenomena as well. We used to interpret those singularities as defects of the mathematical models, without any physical meaning. I wonder what is the basis for the interpretation of “the singularity” as something physically meaningful.

However, assuming that “the singularity” has physical meaning, isn’t the associated mathematical model a description of what is observed and interpreted on the basis of some current physical theory? If the model has a singularity, isn’t it clear that it belongs to it, that it is “described” by it and, therefore, that it is part of such “physical law”?
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Beautiful, thank you.

I still have the same comment as before. If based on some assumptions you develop a mathematical model and it has a singularity, can’t we say that this singularity is described by the model?
Click to expand...
In many cases the model breaks down at the singularity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top