Eternal Creation Ex Nihilo vs Modern Cosmology

[Skeptic92]

If you watch the start of this video, he describes 3 conceptions of God:

Passive (prime-mover-like) which would correspond to a Deist perspective. He discusses this first, from about 6mins to 20mins.

Active (e.g. morality generator, miracle worker, person sorter) which would be non-Deistic. He transitions to this around 42mins.

“Emergent” (god as just a rhetorical device) which is more new-agey. He does not discuss this one.

He says that the fact that people so frequently object to reasoning about God on the grounds that “you don’t really understand God, God is completely different than that” is another reason that it is not a good theory.

The Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of God is not compatible with Deism; he doesn’t even touch the Aristotelian argument from Motion. He is basically arguing that the Natural Sciences provide the only valid method for the acquisition of knowledge; which is a self-defeating, self-refuting metaphysics.

ismailignosis.com/2014/03/27/he-who-is-above-all-else-the-strongest-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

This would be another form of Avicennas Argument to a Necessary Existent, and Aquinas’ first 3 ways.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of God is not compatible with Deism; he doesn’t even touch the Aristotelian argument from Motion. He is basically arguing that the Natural Sciences provide the only valid method for the acquisition of knowledge; which is a self-defeating, self-refuting metaphysics.

ismailignosis.com/2014/03/27/he-who-is-above-all-else-the-strongest-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

This would be another form of Avicennas Argument to a Necessary Existent, and Aquinas’ first 3 ways.

He did address them. His argument was that the only reason we can use the language of cause and effect (or dependence, as in your article) is that the inside of the universe has a structure with physical laws and an arrow of time. We have no reason to think that outside of the universe, such a structure exists. Without such a structure, there may be no such thing as cause and effect or dependence, which means that the universe could very well exist without a cause and independent of anything else.

I will also point out that your link is either misunderstanding or lying about the work of Alexander Vilenkin and Alan Guth when it says that they demonstrated the universe has a finite past:

In modern times, the conditioned nature of the Universe is obvious because contemporary cosmology has shown that the Universe has a beginning or is finite in in the past (see the work of Alexander Vilenkin, Alan Guth).

youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8&t=65m16s

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sean Carroll gives a good explanation of the cosmologist viewpoint:

Begins discussing prime-mover-like arguments:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=6m

Deals with William Carroll’s point:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=12m40s

edit

Discusses the big bang:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=22m15s

Have you read William Carrolls presentation? Did you watch the video. I have watched half of Sean’s first video above. I could critique it but it would take a long time, hours. I would just ask you if a world without a cause makes any sense to you? Oh, I have addressed the " mystery " of Newton’s " conservation of motion " in my thread " The First Way Explained. " I would like to suggest you read Aquinas by Edward Feser and make a habit of reading his blogspot and his archives. He addresses most, perhaps all of the questions Sean raises.

My honest opinion, Sean Carroll hasn’t a leg to stand on. I’m sorry to hear he attended Catholic Schools, I wonder if he was a Catholic?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sean Carroll gives a good explanation of the cosmologist viewpoint:

Begins discussing prime-mover-like arguments:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=6m

Deals with William Carroll’s point:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=12m40s

edit

Discusses the big bang:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=22m15s

Edward Feser answers Sean Carroll here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/carroll-on-laws-and-causation.html

It is clear that Sean does not understand the Thomistic argument. For some insight into this I recommend his blogspot and archives. Here is an example:

goodreads.com/author/show/43145.Edward_Feser/blog

I would also point out that Aquinas’ arguments are based on the assumption that the universe is eternal ( for the sake of argument only ). I have adderssed this in posts 1 & 5 above.

I would also recommend you read Aquinas by Edward Feser

Linus2nd

 

[Skeptic92]

He did address them. His argument was that the only reason we can use the language of cause and effect (or dependence, as in your article) is that the inside of the universe has a structure with physical laws and an arrow of time. We have no reason to think that outside of the universe, such a structure exists. Without such a structure, there may be no such thing as cause and effect or dependence, which means that the universe could very well exist without a cause and independent of anything else.

I will also point out that your link is either misunderstanding or lying about the work of Alexander Vilenkin and Alan Guth when it says that they demonstrated the universe has a finite past:

youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8&t=65m16s

Interesting critique; since for the sake of Argument the link I provided assumes that the universe has no temporal beginning. There are philosophical reasons for accepting the Kalam argument on Ontological grounds; through demonstrating that an infinite past-time implicitly violates non-contradiction. That is beyond the argument I provided you; you might want to read it

Chapter 0 deals with Sean Carrolls worldview quite well; amazon.com/Scholastic-Metaphysics-Contemporary-Introduction-Scholasticae/dp/3868385444/

The rest of the book also goes through the rest of the underlying metaphysics; providing solid arguments in their favour, and engaging with modern Analytical Philosophy.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I would just ask you if a world without a cause makes any sense to you?

It makes exactly as much sense as a God without cause.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It makes exactly as much sense as a God without cause.

In that case shouldn’t we be seeing unusual happenings to be going on all the time, like bowling balls suddenly appeaing in front of us on the dinning room table?

But that aside, though you haven’t had time, I would urge you to read the sources I gave you, beginning with the ones mentioned in my posts #‘s 1 and 5. You can’t logically commit yourself to materialist, naturalist scientism without exploring the alternative. And don’t forget to take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church linked below . I’m just about to the end of Sean’s video, haven’t seen anything yet which refutes Aquinas’ arguments or Feser’s or which establishes the reasonableness of a causless universe. .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Just finished Sean’s video. My conclusion stands. Nothing to it at all, during most of it he was chasing red herrings. All I can say is that it is a little surprizing to see a physicist so absorbed with attempting to disprove the existence of God ( which can’t be done in the first place ), who is so illogical in his argument, and who knows nothing about Thomistic philosophy. If it weren’t for the fact that he has the ear of the philosophically untutered youth, he wouldn’t be worth bothering about. It’s the Pied Piper Syndrome being played out in college and university classes the world over. The ignorant, excitable masses following after a colorful, musical mirage. You want a world without God, or want to know what it would be like? I predict that you will soon know because, though God will always exist, when man turns his back on him, bad things begin to happen. If man does not want God, God will oblige by hiding in his heaven and letting man do what he will.

Linus2nd

 

[JapaneseKappa]

In that case shouldn’t we be seeing unusual happenings to be going on all the time, like bowling balls suddenly appeaing in front of us on the dinning room table?

No, because within the universe things obeys laws.

But that aside, though you haven’t had time, I would urge you to read the sources I gave you, beginning with the ones mentioned in my posts #‘s 1 and 5. You can’t logically commit yourself to materialist, naturalist scientism without exploring the alternative. And don’t forget to take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church linked below . I’m just about to the end of Sean’s video, haven’t seen anything yet which refutes Aquinas’ arguments or Feser’s or which establishes the reasonableness of a causless universe. .

Linus2nd

One of your links says this:

The need to explain the existence of things does not disappear as a result of new explanations which propose to account for various changes (or even to deny them), regardless of how ancient or primordial these changes are. Thomas Aquinas would have no difficulty accepting Big Bang cosmology, even with its recent variations, while also affirming the doctrine of creation from nothing. He would, of course, distinguish between advances in cosmology and the philosophical and theological reflections on these advances.

But Sean Carroll is simply saying that there may be no explanation of existence. There is no reason to posit a being to initiate, sustain, or otherwise explain the existence of the universe. The universe (eternal or otherwise) may simply exist on its own, and no quantity of unverified assertions by medieval philosophers dismisses that possibility.

Assertions such as this one from earlier in the article:

Aquinas observes that “the causality of the Creator . . . extends to everything that is in the thing. And, therefore, creation is said to be out of nothing, because nothing uncreated pre-exists creation.” The Creator is prior to what is created, but the priority is not fundamentally temporal. Creation has its origin in a creator and is wholly dependent upon the Creator for its existence; the dependence is metaphysical not temporal:

[N]on-being is prior to being in the thing which is said to be created. This is not a priority of time or of duration, such that what did not exist before does exist later, but a priority of nature, so that, if the created thing is left to itself, it would not exist, because it only has its being from the causality of the higher cause

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sean Carroll gives a good explanation of the cosmologist viewpoint:

Begins discussing prime-mover-like arguments:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=6m

Deals with William Carroll’s point:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=12m40s

edit

Discusses the big bang:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=22m15s

Your research is faulty, all three links are the same video .

Linus2nd

 

[Skeptic92]

No, because within the universe things obeys laws.

What is the nature of these laws? Are they Platonic Forms, Scholastic Powers of substances, or something else? Considering originally “laws of nature” were originally Theological Decrees of God from Protestant Theology; appeal to them doesn’t seem to help the Secularist. Unless of course you have another explanation that has explanatory powers, and doesn’t render the achievements of science a miracle.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What is the nature of these laws? Are they Platonic Forms, Scholastic Powers of substances, or something else? Considering originally “laws of nature” were originally Theological Decrees of God from Protestant Theology; appeal to them doesn’t seem to help the Secularist. Unless of course you have another explanation that has explanatory powers, and doesn’t render the achievements of science a miracle.

They are properties of the universe.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Your research is faulty, all three links are the same video .

Linus2nd

Different times in the video so people who are interested in one particular topic don’t have to hunt through the whole thing.

 

[Skeptic92]

They are properties of the universe.

Okay; and what do you mean by property? and what do you mean by universe? Is the universal the aggregate of “events”? Is the universe the collective of the substances contained within it?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Okay; and what do you mean by property? and what do you mean by universe? Is the universal the aggregate of “events”? Is the universe the collective of the substances contained within it?

The universe is the set of all things that exist.

 

[Skeptic92]

The universe is the set of all things that exist.

What is are these things that exist? How do the laws of physics interact with them? If they are properties of them; would you concede that they are causal powers of things that exist (substance), which adhere in them. What we call “laws” are how substances will interact given the causal powers which they have in virtue of the beings/things that they are?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What is are these things that exist?

You are asking for an enumeration of things that exist?

How do the laws of physics interact with them? If they are properties of them; would you concede that they are causal powers of things that exist (substance), which adhere in them. What we call “laws” are how substances will interact given the causal powers which they have in virtue of the beings/things that they are?

The laws don’t interact with things, things behave in certain ways and the laws describe those behaviors.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Different times in the video so people who are interested in one particular topic don’t have to hunt through the whole thing.

I see now. Well, since I watched the whole thing I’m good. I don’t think he answered William E. Carroll at all, in fact I can’t see where he answered anyone. His arguments, as I said, merely chase after red herrings. He certainly doen’s answer Thomas Aquinas. And I really don’t understand the big deal about the Big Bang.

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

You are asking for an enumeration of things that exist?

The laws don’t interact with things, things behave in certain ways and the laws describe those behaviors.

Its interesting that we find ourselves in a reality where things behave consistently according to their particular natures. Why should this be true? I see no necessary reason why physics ought to behave the way it does and I have never been satisfied with a just so story.

 

[tdgesq]

The universe is the set of all things that exist.

I assume that includes all things that may exist in the postulated multiverse. Sean Carroll has some fundamental philosophical problems with his approach.

On the one hand, he admits that physical mathematically-based laws (including general relativity) break down at the singularity, that he must assume mathematical constants that don’t hold in our universe, that the laws of thermodynamics must be violated, that the direction of time must be modified, that material existence ultimately doesn’t have a cause - all in order to create a cosmological model that (he admits) is not completely accurate. His argument for doing this is that whatever principles hold in our universe do not necessarily hold outside of our universe.

On the other hand, he uses Baysian statistics to calculate the probability of our universe existing versus other universes. He uses the basic principle (I mean in the scientific sense) of cause and effect in his analysis of how a parent universe can create another universe. He uses the laws of logic (and math) to reach his conclusions. All of this is based on his empirical observation of this universe, as it must be.

In a nutshell, Carroll is being completely arbitrary in what basic principles he picks and chooses from our universe and then applies outside of our universe; other than they are necessary for his model to have any semblance of legitimacy. This no longer qualifies as science. Carroll has no empirical evidence to support these assumptions.

Why do Baysian statistics still apply outside of our universe or any mathematical functions at all? Why do commonly observed principles of causation apply sometimes, but not other times? Because otherwise his model doesn’t work.