Ways to argue that the universe is finite

[hecd2]

First comment, the original question “ways to argue the universe is finite” meant finite in time, ie., that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time, and therefore that it had to have a beginning.

Yes, I understand that, but my post was in response specifically to yppop who was talking about the size rather than the age of the universe. We can say that the observable portion of the universe is finite in time for various reasons, although this is not conclusive about the universe as a whole.

Some people have made arguments that the universe is finite in size, I don’t think this is a disputed point though, and it’s not the issues at hand (though it is an interesting question).

It certainly is a disputed point - determining the geometry of the universe and whether it is spatially compact or infinite is one of the ambitions of cosmology as I pointed out in my previous post.

The fact is that Big Bang cosmology does not a priori preclude an infinitely large universe

-Actually it probably does. (though note first, that the issues of this thread is if the universe had a beginning, that it is finite in time, not size). If the universe expanding from a singularity (as Big Bang cosmology holds), then it could not actually be infinite in size because it is still expanding. Like counting to infinity is impossible, an expanding universe could never be infinite in size.

This is wrong. The expansion of the universe does not preclude it being unbounded (ie spatially infinite). A homogeneous isotropic universe with a flat (Euclidean in all spatial dimensions) global geometry (Omega = 1) is unbounded and spatially infinite. Only compact universe geometries with positive global curvature are spatially finite. Expansion can occur in an unbounded and spatially infinite universe of flat geometry simply by increase of the cosmic scale factor. There really is nothing about expansioin that precludes an infinite universe.

It is interesting to note that measurements of the local geometry of the universe indicate that it is close to being flat.

• As for the cosmic background radiation, that was emitted during a very hot dense phase of the universe, which confirms the expansion of the universe. So this is evidence that the universe is finite in time and in size.

It is evidence for a finite time for the *observable *universe since Big Bang, but it says nothing about the whether the universe can be spatially infinite.

-Cassini, I really am pretty skeptical of the idea of a geo-centric universe. Sungenis, for instance, who is the only guy you cite is a theologian, he does not have a degree in physics, and doesn’t publish peer-reviewed sources.

You are right. See here: evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[yppop]

It is certainly true that some form of Big Bang cosmology (specifically lambda CDM with inflation and dark energy) is a good fit to our observations and is therefore the best current theory. However LCDM does not preclude an infinite universe. See below.

The BB may not preclude an infinite universe, but common sense surely suggests a finite universe. It is the space that emerged from the big bang that gives dimensionality to the universe. When, for example, the emerging space and hence the extent of the universe had the dimensions of a pumpkin, the pumpkin-sized universe was surely finite; was it not? If not, please describe a scenario in which universal space, which defines the size of the universe and was at one moment in time the size of a pumpkin, can now be infinite??

I don’t think that this is right - there is nothing about the nature of a flat geometry (ie infinite in extent) universe that precludes its expansion.

I agree that a flat geometry universe can expand (but only if it’s finite). The last part of the sentence seems to parenthetically imply that “flat geometry” must be infinite; is this what you mean by: “…flat geometry (ie infinite in extent) …”? Or, are you alluding to statements that are usually associated with the Hubble constant, namely that spherical geometry is bounded (finite) and flat and hyperbolical geometry are infinite. I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that those are merely mathematical statements that don’t necessarily (and in my opinion can’t) apply to the expanding space that defines the geometry of the universe?

The geometry of the universe can be globally flat and infinite and still arise in a Big Bang with or without inflation and with current expansion.

Here is typical example that I found in my research that is given to explain how if the size of the universe is infinite the space within can still expand:

"First, let’s make something clear. In the standard interpretation, if the geometry is flat or hyperbolic, space is and always has been infinite. You should not, therefore, think of this as I used to, e.g., that a flat universe is currently finite but will expand forever. This might be a little difficult to imagine; how can something that is already infinite expand? Liddle suggests considering the positive integers: 1; 2; 3; : : : When doubled, you get 2; 4; 6; : : : but it’s still infinite. Another way to think of it that might be closer to reality is to consider an infinite grid going in all directions. Now imagine that something pushes all the grid points farther from each other. Since the distance between any two given grid points increases, the grid expands, but is still infinite.

I am familiar with the explanation of a grid and co-moving points, but all that proves is that an abstract grid is expanding without explaining how the continuous space that the grid is applied to is expanding.

Nevertheless, I love the grid explanation because what the author implies (with an intellectual sleight of hand not unusual in anti-theist arguments) when he allows the distance between any two grid points to expand is that the space that defines the universe must be discrete and not continuous in order for the real space to expand as the abstract grid expands. Anyone that knows anything about continuity knows that there is no “next” point, i.e., there are no gaps in continuous space, so no matter which two ‘specific’ points are chosen there is still an infinite number of points in the distance separating them and nothing changes, nothing expands. I contend that only if space is finite and discrete can the universe expand. I can accept — in fact insist— that we think of the ‘universal space’ that emerged with the BB is discrete and not continuous, but even if universal space is discrete and we expand the gaps in a ‘grid’ consisting of separated points, a pumpkin-size universe will never reach infinity.

A better scenario is to imagine a singularity consisting of large but finite number of discrete points immersed in an infinite expanse of continuous space expanding because the distance separating the points, which in discrete space can be put into one to one correspondence with a grid of co-moving points, is increasing.

I rest my case.
Yppop

 

[yppop]

And this is not right - the idea that photons need to be contained in the expanding universe by bouncing or reflection is simply wrong. The photons of the CMB have travelled freely from their source at decoupling, ie from the surface of last scattering, to us, by following geodesics that do not involve reflection from any surface. The idea that the radiation would ‘dissipate’ in an infinite universe is not correct. All points within the universe emitted freely propagating photons at the time of decoupling. What we observe are those photons, coming from every direction in the sky from matter lying on a sphere that is now (co-moving) of the order 46 billion light years in radius.

The fact is that Big Bang cosmology does not a priori preclude an infinitely large universe - in fact discerning the geometry of the universe is one of the ambitions of cosmology based on a posteriori observations.

hecd2

Are you implying that the theory and concomitant equations of black body radiation were not used in the calculation of the CMB? Otherwise, when black body theory is applied then all of the photons that were decoupled at the surface of last scattering (at 3000K) are still present within the dimensions of the universe. Calculation of the 3K background implies 5 x 10^5 photons per liter, a radiation density that is impossible if the universe was infinite.

As for whether or not we are discussing finite time or finite size, I assumed size because if one accepts the big bang from which “time” emerged then the beginning of time is defined and becomes a moot point.

I rest my case.
Yppop

 

[hecd2]

The BB may not preclude an infinite universe, but common sense surely suggests a finite universe.

I’m afraid that common sense is not a reliable guide when it comes to determining cosmology.

It is the space that emerged from the big bang that gives dimensionality to the universe. When, for example, the emerging space and hence the extent of the universe had the dimensions of a pumpkin, the pumpkin-sized universe was surely finite; was it not? If not, please describe a scenario in which universal space, which defines the size of the universe and was at one moment in time the size of a pumpkin, can now be infinite??

The universe is finite in extent after the Planck time if, and only if, the geometry of spacetime has positive curvature and the topology is compact (for example hyperspheric or toroidal). If, however after Planck time, the universe is flat and the geometry globally Euclidean, then the universe is infinite in extent and the universe would never have been the size of a pumpkin. This scenario occurs if the curvature index, k, in the expression for the FRLW metric is equal to zero (remember that all of this assumes a isotropic, homogeneous universe). The expansion of the universe refers to the increase over time of the scale factor which can happen equally well in a finite and infinite universe.

I agree that a flat geometry universe can expand (but only if it’s finite).

That is not correct.

The last part of the sentence seems to parenthetically imply that “flat geometry” must be infinite; is this what you mean by: “…flat geometry (ie infinite in extent) …”?

Yes, if the geometry of the universe is globally flat then it must be spatially infinite, otherwise space would have a boundary which is impossibly problematic. All of this falls out of the FRLW solutions to the Einstein field equations.

Here is typical example that I found in my research that is given to explain how if the size of the universe is infinite the space within can still expand:

"First, let’s make something clear…

I am familiar with the explanation of a grid and co-moving points, but all that proves is that an abstract grid is expanding without explaining how the continuous space that the grid is applied to is expanding.

Nevertheless, I love the grid explanation because what the author implies (with an intellectual sleight of hand not unusual in anti-theist arguments) when he allows the distance between any two grid points to expand is that the space that defines the universe must be discrete and not continuous in order for the real space to expand as the abstract grid expands. Anyone that knows anything about continuity knows that there is no “next” point, i.e., there are no gaps in continuous space, so no matter which two ‘specific’ points are chosen there is still an infinite number of points in the distance separating them and nothing changes, nothing expands. I contend that only if space is finite and discrete can the universe expand. I can accept — in fact insist— that we think of the ‘universal space’ that emerged with the BB is discrete and not continuous, but even if universal space is discrete and we expand the gaps in a ‘grid’ consisting of separated points, a pumpkin-size universe will never reach infinity.

Well the problem here is that you are thinking about a universe embedded in a pre-existing space and that the Big Bang occurs at some point in that space from which the universe expands. But this is not what the Big Bang is like at all - at the Big Bang not just matter-energy but space itself comes into existence - there is no space outside the universe for it to expand into and the Big Bang occurred at all points in the universe. Either the universe is spatially infinite, or it is finite and spatially compact. In either case, space cannot have boundaries. The question of whether or not space is quantised does not enter into these considerations. The EFEs and their solutions are classical - they do not depend at all on quantum theory or whether space is continuous or quantised. The evolution of the universe is defined by changes to the metric tensor over time - the metric, in GR, and the scale factor which defines it, is perfectly able to vary continuously.

A better scenario is to imagine a singularity consisting of large but finite number of discrete points immersed in an infinite expanse of continuous space expanding because the distance separating the points, which in discrete space can be put into one to one correspondence with a grid of co-moving points, is increasing.

This demonstrates your misconception - the singularity is not held to exist in a pre-existing space - at the singularity, all that exists is the singularity.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2

Are you implying that the theory and concomitant equations of black body radiation were not used in the calculation of the CMB?

I’m not sure what you mean by “the calculation of the CMB”. The mechanism which creates the CMB is predicted to produce radiation with a black-body spectrum and the spectrum of the CMB is measured to be very close to a black body (within about one part in 10,000 at the greatest departure from the theoretical case).

Otherwise, when black body theory is applied then all of the photons that were decoupled at the surface of last scattering (at 3000K) are still present within the dimensions of the universe. Calculation of the 3K background implies 5 x 10^5 photons per liter, a radiation density that is impossible if the universe was infinite.

Why is this photon density not possible in a spatially infinite universe? You don’t think that the surface of last scattering refers to a single surface in space, do you? You do realise that the CMB pervades the entire universe and that it appears, at any point in the universe, to be coming from a spherical shell (the surface of last scattering) centred on the point of observation which is, in co-moving co-ordinates, about 45 billion light years away.

I think you have a couple of basic misconceptions. In a previous post you talked about the black body spectrum of the CMB being disrupted if photons don’t “bounce off the border” - but a) the temperature of the CMB does not depend on the photon density (ie the intensity of the CMB), b) there is no border to bounce off, c) wherever photons are propagating through space is, by definition, within the universe - photons cannot, by definition, escape from the universe. The fact of the BB spectrum of the CMB is no argument against a spatially infinite universe.

As for whether or not we are discussing finite time or finite size, I assumed size because if one accepts the big bang from which “time” emerged then the beginning of time is defined and becomes a moot point.

Correct - at least for the observable universe - but in fact the OP was about time not spatial extent.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wanstronian]

Wow - so many misunderstandings and misrepresentations, so much selective and biased reasoning by theists in this thread!!

Three main points:

1 - Not many atheists believe that the Universe as we know it has existed forever. The OP is way off base here if he/she believes this is a common atheist argument. Not only would such a belief be contrary to the evidence we have, but it’s hardly a necessary belief to hold to dismiss the God hypothesis.

2 - The Kalam argument, as promoted by Craig, is not robust. It does not stand up to scrutiny. Like all versions of the Cosmological argument it relies on baseless assumption, special pleading and logical inconsistency.

1. Most theists who quote the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics don’t really know what they’re talking about. They mis-use it in such a way that it becomes an Argument from Ignorance, and they conveniently ignore the implications of the 1st law. Not much of an argument that relies on the truth of one law while simultaneously requiring its predecessor to be false!

In answer to the OPs original notional question - if you really feel you’re on to a winner if you can ‘prove’ the Universe is finite, then just point to the fact that all the scientific evidence we have indicates that this is true, and that most cosmologists and cosmogonists believe it. But even if this defeats your (apparently under-informed) opponent, you should be aware that this ‘argument’ is meaningless.

 

[catholictiger]

Wow - so many misunderstandings and misrepresentations, so much selective and biased reasoning by theists in this thread!!

Three main points:

1 - Not many atheists believe that the Universe as we know it has existed forever. The OP is way off base here if he/she believes this is a common atheist argument. Not only would such a belief be contrary to the evidence we have, but it’s hardly a necessary belief to hold to dismiss the God hypothesis.

I guess your right but I found some people who do believe it is it just seems they argue by that why can’t it be infinite becuase there is nothing that proves anything comes before the big bang, its just the first point the universe exapns

2 -

The Kalam argument, as promoted by Craig, is not robust. It does not stand up to scrutiny. Like all versions of the Cosmological argument it relies on baseless assumption, special pleading and logical inconsistency.

I like aquienses argument

it uses humans being finite to argue for the existence of God, a much easier thing to prove

1. Most theists who quote the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics don’t really know what they’re talking about. They mis-use it in such a way that it becomes an Argument from Ignorance, and they conveniently ignore the implications of the 1st law. Not much of an argument that relies on the truth of one law while simultaneously requiring its predecessor to be false!

ok

In answer to the OPs original notional question - if you really feel you’re on to a winner if you can ‘prove’ the Universe is finite, then just point to the fact that all the scientific evidence we have indicates that this is true, and that most cosmologists and cosmogonists believe it. But even if this defeats your (apparently under-informed) opponent, you should be aware that this ‘argument’ is meaningless.

I did do that but they seem to not believe in that, its hard to argue the universe is finie with people who won’t agree with something or believe in something with lots of scientific proof

 

[hecd2]

The universe is finite in extent after the Planck time if, and only if, the geometry of spacetime has positive curvature and the topology is compact (for example hyperspheric or toroidal).

Grr! What am I saying? A 3-torus is a zero curvature (not positive curvature) compact boundary-free manifold. So the universe is finite in extent if the topology is compact and connected.

The universe is infinite if the curvature is zero on a global manifold of unconnected Euclidean space.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[danserr]

Wow - so many misunderstandings and misrepresentations, so much selective and biased reasoning by theists in this thread!!

1 - Not many atheists believe that the Universe as we know it has existed forever. The OP is way off base here if he/she believes this is a common atheist argument. Not only would such a belief be contrary to the evidence we have, but it’s hardly a necessary belief to hold to dismiss the God hypothesis.

2 - The Kalam argument, as promoted by Craig, is not robust. It does not stand up to scrutiny. Like all versions of the Cosmological argument it relies on baseless assumption, special pleading and logical inconsistency.

1. Most theists who quote the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics don’t really know what they’re talking about. They mis-use it in such a way that it becomes an Argument from Ignorance, and they conveniently ignore the implications of the 1st law. Not much of an argument that relies on the truth of one law while simultaneously requiring its predecessor to be false!

In answer to the OPs original notional question - if you really feel you’re on to a winner if you can ‘prove’ the Universe is finite, then just point to the fact that all the scientific evidence we have indicates that this is true, and that most cosmologists and cosmogonists believe it. But even if this defeats your (apparently under-informed) opponent, you should be aware that this ‘argument’ is meaningless.

Wastronian, your post is rather uncharitable in tone, but passing that by, possibly you could offer some arguments for your assertions, that we might consider. For instance, you simply assert that Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument is not robust, but you offer no real reason to doubt it. Possibly you could do so, I summarize a brief version of this argument in Post 13.

For instance you say, not many atheists believe the universe has existed forever, if true, this is excellent on their part, but so many have tried to come up with alternate cosmologies to the Big Bang that it seems obvious that many still wish to try and avoid the remarkable implications of the fact that the universe had a beginning. I mention in Post 13, which the fact that the universe had a beginning implies the existence of God. I would be happy to consider a reason to doubt this if you would provide one.

Also, the same applies to your contempt for theist use of the second law of thermodynamics. You really haven’t said why theists are wrong, you have just ridiculed their understanding. I will be delighted to consider a reason I or Craig are wrong in thinking that the second law of thermodynamics implies a beginning to the universe, but you must give one and so far have not.

• The issue with the second law, is that it states that processes in a closed system (on the athiest view the universe is a closed system) tend to run down and quit. As the universe expands, galaxies and matter get even further and further apart and will continue to do so until the universe suffers heat death. This implies a beginning to the universe since if it were infinite, then it should already have run down and suffered heat death. since, it clearly has not done this, this implies the universe had a beginning.

The expansion of the universe implies teh existence of God:
1). everything that begins to exist has a cause- this is more plausibly true than not, things do not simply pop into existence out of nothing. Atheists who claim this is possible are simply desperately trying to escape the implications for the beginning of the universe.
2). The universe began to exist
3). The universe has a cause (see post 13 for why).

In short, Wastronian, you haven’t offered any actual reasons against a Kalam argument, you’ve just ridiculed it and accused theists of not knowing what they are talking about. I would be happy to consider any actual reasons you give, but in their absence, I don’t see any good reasons to doubt that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning implies the existence of God.

 

[wanstronian]

Wastronian, your post is rather uncharitable in tone, but passing that by, possibly you could offer some arguments for your assertions, that we might consider. For instance, you simply assert that Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument is not robust, but you offer no real reason to doubt it. Possibly you could do so, I summarize a brief version of this argument in Post 13.

Apologies if it seemed uncharitable, it’s just a bit frustrating seeing the same old tired arguments put forward, as if they prove anything!

For instance you say, not many atheists believe the universe has existed forever, if true, this is excellent on their part

It’s merely a recognition of the evidence. No “excellence” required!

, but so many have tried to come up with alternate cosmologies to the Big Bang that it seems obvious that many still wish to try and avoid the remarkable implications of the fact that the universe had a beginning. I mention in Post 13, which the fact that the universe had a beginning implies the existence of God. I would be happy to consider a reason to doubt this if you would provide one.

The universe as we know it almost certainly had a beginning - but we don’t know how that beginning came about or what it looked like - or what, if anything, was before.

The Kalam does not prove that there were any gods involved in the beginning of the universe. Nor is there any such implication, other than the superficial one invested by the theists who constructed the argument in the first place, and those who propound it still.

Also, the same applies to your contempt for theist use of the second law of thermodynamics. You really haven’t said why theists are wrong, you have just ridiculed their understanding. I will be delighted to consider a reason I or Craig are wrong in thinking that the second law of thermodynamics implies a beginning to the universe, but you must give one and so far have not.

• The issue with the second law, is that it states that processes in a closed system (on the athiest view the universe is a closed system) tend to run down and quit. As the universe expands, galaxies and matter get even further and further apart and will continue to do so until the universe suffers heat death. This implies a beginning to the universe since if it were infinite, then it should already have run down and suffered heat death. since, it clearly has not done this, this implies the universe had a beginning.

I have no issue with the 2nd law being used to imply a beginning to the universe. It’s often misued in other ways by theists (it’s a common pseudo-argument against evolution, for example), so I was making a general comment about that.

The expansion of the universe implies teh existence of God:

1). everything that begins to exist has a cause- this is more plausibly true than not, things do not simply pop into existence out of nothing. Atheists who claim this is possible are simply desperately trying to escape the implications for the beginning of the universe.

Okay - a few things:

1. What’s your process for establishing what items are in this set of “things that began to exist?” Can you give me an example of something that began to exist?
2. On the assumption that “things that began to exist” is a subset of “Everything,” then there must also be another set “things that did not begin to exist.” What’s your process for determining what fits in this second subset? How do you prove it’s not an empty set?
3. This cause-effect relationship is axiomatically true for the physical universe we have observed so far. We have no evidence that physical effects can come from non-physical (aka supernatural) causes.

Finally - who are you to speak for atheistic motivation on this? The fact is that there is evidence that particles pop into existence for no apparent reason. It may just be that we haven’t found the cause yet, or it might be that there’s no cause.

2). The universe began to exist

In its current form. We don’t know what went before.

3). The universe has a cause (see post 13 for why).

If premises 1 and 2 are correct and unequivocal (and we’ve seen that there’s plenty of room for doubt), then this is true. But this does not imply God, it just implies something.

The Kalam falls down in a number of ways:

First premise:
Firstly, it fails to explain how one arrives at the sets of “things that began to exist” and “things that didn’t begin to exist.” It fails to show that the latter of those two sets has anything in it, or is even capable of having anything in it. If it were to achieve this, it would also have to show that this latter set can only have one member. But if one just declares that this set includes God and only God, then you’re begging the question - inserting God into the premise and collapsing the whole argument.

The second premise makes an assertion about the Universe that cannot be substantiated - that “began” is equal to “did not exist in any form previously.” We don’t know that this is the case.

Finally, the whole thing relies on applying a causality relationship observed within the universe, to the universe itself. So it commits the Composition Fallacy to boot.

In short, Wastronian, you haven’t offered any actual reasons against a Kalam argument, you’ve just ridiculed it and accused theists of not knowing what they are talking about. I would be happy to consider any actual reasons you give, but in their absence, I don’t see any good reasons to doubt that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning implies the existence of God.

Hopefully you now see why these arguments are inadequate.

p.s. It’s “wanstronian.”

 

[danserr]

Wanstronian thanks for your thoughtful post, here is my sense of it,

To summarize the KCA is:
1). Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2). The universe began to exist
3). The universe has a cause of its existence

Now this is a logically valid argument, the conclusion follows from the premises, so we have to see if the premises are more plausibly true than their denials. So I’ll go in order.

1). Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This seems far more likely than not. It is continually affirmed in out experience, and if things could come into existence out of nothing, then why does anything and everything not come into existence out of nothing?
For instance, a puppy begins to exist. There is a time when it did not exist, and it did not come out of nothing, rather its cause is that 2 dogs were bred to create it.
-you ask how i determine which items are in the set “began to exist,” the answer is simple, if I have evidence that those things began to exist. As I do for everything in the universe. I then use the second premise to establish that the universe began to exist. As for a set of things that did not begin to exist, wait for later, since the argument implies an un-caused cause, God. This is all the argument requires.

• you suggest there is evidence that particles just pop into existence. You refer to the Copenhagen view of Quantum physics, but many physicists are unhappy with this view and are exploring deterministic theories like David Bohm’s. Secondly, even if I grant the in-deterministic interpretation, such particles do not come “out of nothing” but out of a sub-atomic vacuum, which is a sea of fluctuating energy with a rich structure and subject to physical laws" (WLC).
  -Finally, you say we have no evidence that physical effects come from non physical causes. But this begs the question, since the universe (if the KCA is sound) is evidence of that. It is not enough to just say we have no evidence of it, you much show a compelling reason to think such a thing is really impossible, but there is no such reason and the KCA implies such a thing. (more below).

2). The Universe began to exist.- I reason this based on the impossibility of the formation of an infinite by successive addition (post 13), scientific evidence for the expansion of the universe, and the 2nd law of theomodynamics.

• You essentially deny the beginning of the universe, by agreeing that “this” universe began to exist, but that perhaps something else came before it. Now this is really too vague, you must suggest something specific that we can assess to see if this even possible because if it is not then saying “something (physical) came before the universe” is just empty words. But there is no plausible theory that anything physical came before it, most physicists believe that time, space, and matter began to exist at the Big Bang. That is to say, it did not exist in any previous form previously, as this and the philosophical argument show.

the whole thing relies on applying a causality relationship observed within the universe, to the universe itself. So it commits the Composition Fallacy to boot.

Not at all. Because the principle I am proposing (everything that begins to exist has a cause" is not a physical principle, it is a metaphysical principle, and I have answered your reasons for doubting it. On the contrary, if you deny this you are committing the Taxicab Fallacy, because “as Schopenhauer remarked, the causal principle is not something you can dismiss like a cab once you’ve arrived at your desired destination.”

The universe has a cause of its existence*- So this brings us to the conclusion. You object here, “why think the cause is God?” Here are 2 reasons,
1). The universe is by definition all of time, space, and matter. So if it had a beginning (As premise 2 shows) and a cause (premise 1), then the cause must transcend space, time, and matter (since they began to exist) and so cannot be physical, spatial or temporal. Two things fall into this category, abstract objects, like numbers, and minds. Numbers do not cause anything, therefore the cause of the universe is a mind.
2). There are two types of causal relations, a). personal (agents and volition), and b). scientific (laws and initial conditions). The cause of the universe cannot be scientific, because there is nothing physical before it, so it can’t be accounted for by laws operating on initial conditions. Therefore the cause is personal.

So all the first 2 premises are good, and consideration of the cause shows that it is personal, an un-embodied mind, which is what Christians call God.

Finally, a last thought: consider your objections. You object to the first premise that maybe something we don’t know about could come from nothing, to the second, that maybe something we don’t know about besides God did come before it, and to the third, that maybe something that we don’t know about besides God, did cause it. Given the lack of anything solid to appeal to, why not God?*

 

[JDaniel]

one of the classic arguments by atheist is to claim that the universe has always been, never failed to exist, so the universe acts like God, meaning there is no God.

anyway good ways to argue the universe is in fact finite and therefor it depends on a infinite being that would be good in order to exist.

CT:

It’s not easy, but, the best way is from a clear and intelligent understanding of what infinity means. Infinity, or, infinite, means that whatever is is everything, everywhere and everywhen. It doesn’t mean that it is potentially infinite. For the universe to be actually infinite, it would have to be a non-composite, which, as we can clearly see, it is not.

The matter of the universe is not infinite because there’s space between the particles (quanta) of it. That means that it is composite and therefore does not take up everything, everywhere. Space is not infinite, as it is excluded by matter, where ever matter exists. Thus, it, too, does not take up everything, everywhere. In fact, this would be true even if there were multiple universes.

Time cannot be infinite, as it is merely a measurement. It is the measure of motion, or, change. Since we know, from experience, that things come to be and go out of existence, that would mean that there would be no time whenever there was nothing, and no things were in the process of coming to be, or exiting existence. At such occurrences, the continuum would be broken. Time would have to start anew whenever some mobile being came to be.

As a result of current science, it is understood that the universe had a beginning. Thus, time could not have existed on the front side of that beginning. Time, therefore, began simultaneously with the universe’s beginning. Whatever has a beginning (or, an end), cannot be infinite.

Furthermore, if time were infinite, we would not be here now. There would never occur a present time, in an infinite continuum. A current present would mean that the continuum was not non-composite. An infinite time continuum must be non-composite: it cannot be made up of segments of time, or before’s or after’s, or even now’s.

The universe can be more properly defined as trans-finite: a very big, but, finite, compilation of space and matter. To postulate multiple universes is nothing more than that: a postulation: a muddied imagination imagining.

God bless,
jd

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian thanks for your thoughtful post, here is my sense of it,

To summarize the KCA is:
1). Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2). The universe began to exist
3). The universe has a cause of its existence

Now this is a logically valid argument, the conclusion follows from the premises, so we have to see if the premises are more plausibly true than their denials. So I’ll go in order.

1). Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This seems far more likely than not. It is continually affirmed in out experience, and if things could come into existence out of nothing, then why does anything and everything not come into existence out of nothing?
For instance, a puppy begins to exist. There is a time when it did not exist, and it did not come out of nothing, rather its cause is that 2 dogs were bred to create it.
-you ask how i determine which items are in the set “began to exist,” the answer is simple, if I have evidence that those things began to exist. As I do for everything in the universe.

So your definition is bound by the First Law of Thermodynamics, yes?

I then use the second premise to establish that the universe began to exist.

So, you have evidence that things in the universe begin to exist, and choose to extrapolate this for the Universe as a whole? Can you see the problem with this? Let me spell it out for you:

Your observable examples are bound by the First Law of Thermal Dynamics - matter cannot be created or destroyed. Do you believe that this law also applies to the Universe as a whole? If so, then it can’t have been created. If not, then your evidential extrapolation is invalid.

As for a set of things that did not begin to exist, wait for later, since the argument implies an un-caused cause, God. This is all the argument requires.

There we have it - your conclusion is implicit in your premises. The argument just imploded.

You have failed to state how you determine the contents of the set “things that did not begin to exist.”
You have failed to demonstrate how this set contains one, and only one, member.
Instead you have just stated that God is the sole member of this set. This is begging the question.

• you suggest there is evidence that particles just pop into existence. You refer to the Copenhagen view of Quantum physics, but many physicists are unhappy with this view and are exploring deterministic theories like David Bohm’s. Secondly, even if I grant the in-deterministic interpretation, such particles do not come “out of nothing” but out of a sub-atomic vacuum, which is a sea of fluctuating energy with a rich structure and subject to physical laws" (WLC).

Whatever - you made an emotive ad hominem claim about atheistic motivation for this phenomena. I’ve pointed out that scientific theories do exist. I’m not saying I advocate them or not - I’m not really well enough versed to able to comment. I’m just pointing out the fallacious nature of your comment.

-Finally, you say we have no evidence that physical effects come from non physical causes. But this begs the question, since the universe (if the KCA is sound) is evidence of that. It is not enough to just say we have no evidence of it, you much show a compelling reason to think such a thing is really impossible, but there is no such reason and the KCA implies such a thing. (more below).

Now you’re saying, effectively, “If the KCA is correct, then we have evidence of the premise that forms part of the KCA.” A clear case of circular logic. It is not I who is begging the question, but you, as you are clearly inserting your desired conclusion into the premises of your argument!

2). The Universe began to exist.- I reason this based on the impossibility of the formation of an infinite by successive addition (post 13), scientific evidence for the expansion of the universe, and the 2nd law of theomodynamics.

• You essentially deny the beginning of the universe, by agreeing that “this” universe began to exist, but that perhaps something else came before it. Now this is really too vague, you must suggest something specific that we can assess to see if this even possible because if it is not then saying “something (physical) came before the universe” is just empty words.

Wrong again - it is not my burden of proof to show that the Universe had a prior form. It is yours as the one making the positive claim. A common theist tactic, I might say. Whether or not my objection is vague is entirely irrelevant - all I have to do is show that there is sufficient doubt surrounding your premise. This I have done, by pointing out that nobody knows how the Universe came about, and by pointing out the flaws with your assertions on the matter.

But there is no plausible theory that anything physical came before it, most physicists believe that time, space, and matter began to exist at the Big Bang. That is to say, it did not exist in any previous form previously, as this and the philosophical argument show.

No - there are no plausible theories, because we simply can’t know. That is no reason to suppose it came from nothing - that’s just the Argument from Ignorance. The most common theory amongst cosmologists is that the Universe was spawned from a singularity. I’m not about to try and reject the overwhelming opinion of experts in the field. I’m just pointing out that we don’t know. Whether the universe previously existed in another form doesn’t really matter - the rest of the KCA is sufficiently flawed that the origin of the universe is irrelevant.

 

[wanstronian]

Not at all. Because the principle I am proposing (everything that begins to exist has a cause" is not a physical principle, it is a metaphysical principle, and I have answered your reasons for doubting it. On the contrary, if you deny this you are committing the Taxicab Fallacy, because “as Schopenhauer remarked, the causal principle is not something you can dismiss like a cab once you’ve arrived at your desired destination.”

**Well firstly, I’m clearly not dismissing the principle, I’m just pointing out that your conclusion is drawn from an erroneous extrapolation of it, and is therefore unreliable.

It’s interesting that you’ve resorted to ‘metaphysics’ as soon as proper science stops supporting your hypothesis. With ‘metaphysics’ you can prove virtually anything, so this stops being a discussion with a future.

The universe has a cause of its existence

 

[Windfish]

It’s funny because you say that we keep propounding the same argument, but I could just as easily say that you keep propounding the same misguided objections. William Lane Craig, whatever you think about him, is obviously an intelligent man. Do you really think some random dude on the internet can raise objections to his arguments that he hasn’t thought of or that his atheistic/theistic colleagues haven’t already brought to his attention? And, in fact, a lot of your objections have been raised in the debates he has been in, and he as corrected them. He has some refutations of them on his website and has more thorough treatments in all of his books.

So… which of his books have you read on the Kalam? What research have you done it?

 

[hecd2]

It’s not easy, but, the best way is from a clear and intelligent understanding of what infinity means.

A clear and intelligent understanding of what infinity means does help when you’re talking about it.

Infinity, or, infinite, means that whatever is is everything, everywhere and everywhen.

This is not at all correct at least in mathematics or physics. First of all there are infinities of very specific sets (such as the cardinality of the set of all integers or all prime numbers which are countably infinite - or a larger infinity such as the cardinality of the set of all real numbers which is uncountably infinite). Neither of these encompass *everything, everywhere and everywhen. *But actually the converse is also true - in a closed universe, what is, is everything, everywhere and everywhen and is finite. In physics, it is possible to talk about physical entities being infinite without invoking the everything, everywhere, everywhen definition, for example in GR space is infinitely curved and so gravity is infinitely strong and the matter is infinitely dense at the singularity of a black hole.

It doesn’t mean that it is potentially infinite. For the universe to be actually infinite, it would have to be a non-composite, which, as we can clearly see, it is not.

The proposition that one or more dimensions in the universe can be actually infinite does not depend on it being non-composite.

The matter of the universe is not infinite because there’s space between the particles (quanta) of it. That means that it is composite and therefore does not take up everything, everywhere.

Since your definition of infinity (at least as understood by mathematicians and physicists) is wrong, your conclusion is wrong. In fact, in a universe with at least one infinite dimension, the matter of the universe is infinite, irrespective of the amount of space between particles

Space is not infinite, as it is excluded by matter, where ever matter exists. Thus, it, too, does not take up everything, everywhere. In fact, this would be true even if there were multiple universes.

This also falls on your incorrect definition. Furthermore you talk about space as though it were a sort of water bath in which matter is immersed and which is excluded by matter. But that is not the concept of space at all. Space, or rather space-time is the manifold on which matter-energy interacts - it isn’t excluded in the presence of matter.

As a result of current science, it is understood that the universe had a beginning. Thus, time could not have existed on the front side of that beginning. Time, therefore, began simultaneously with the universe’s beginning.

I don’t think this is necessarily true. Big Bang cosmology tells us that this era in the observable universe began 13.7 billion years ago. It says nothing about the era beyond that event or in places beyond the observable universe.

Furthermore, if time were infinite, we would not be here now. There would never occur a present time, in an infinite continuum. A current present would mean that the continuum was not non-composite. An infinite time continuum must be non-composite: it cannot be made up of segments of time, or before’s or after’s, or even now’s.

Since any actual infinity is made up of actual elements, then it follows that in an infinite time, there would have been an infinite number of presents (a nice concept at Christmas time) of which the current is one. An infinite set can be made up of quantised elements (a countable infinity such as the integers) or a continuum (an uncountable infinity such as the real numbers).

The universe can be more properly defined as trans-finite: a very big, but, finite, compilation of space and matter.

That is not what transfinite means. Transfinite is a term in set theory which means a cardinal number equal to or greater than aleph null, the cardinality of the infinite set of the natural numbers, so it is infinite. It absolutely does not mean very big and finite, by definition.

To postulate multiple universes is nothing more than that: a postulation: a muddied imagination imagining.

It is a postulate, but why muddied?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[JDaniel]

A clear and intelligent understanding of what infinity means does help when you’re talking about it.

Well, hello, Alec! Haven’t spoken with you in quite some time. It’s always good to hear from you.

This is not at all correct at least in mathematics or physics.

Not so, see: scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/10/infinity_is_not_a_number.php

First of all there are infinities of very specific sets (such as the cardinality of the set of all integers or all prime numbers which are countably infinite - or a larger infinity such as the cardinality of the set of all real numbers which is uncountably infinite). Neither of these encompass everything, everywhere and everywhen.

They are not. They’re not real. They are abstractions. They are game settings for “what if’s?”

But actually the converse is also true - in a closed universe, what is, is everything, everywhere and everywhen and is finite.

Play on words. Cute. If I were wrapped in a tight fitting plastic bag, I, too, would be defined by your distortion.

In physics, it is possible to talk about physical entities being infinite without invoking the everything, everywhere, everywhen definition, for example in GR space is infinitely curved and so gravity is infinitely strong and the matter is infinitely dense at the singularity of a black hole.

ONLY in the abstract. What we may find in a black hole is anyone’s guess.

The proposition that one or more dimensions in the universe can be actually infinite does not depend on it being non-composite.

What? Are you trying to tell me that a surface can be an actual infinity? A Really real infinity? How absurd.

Since your definition of infinity (at least as understood by mathematicians and physicists)

“Some” mathematicians and physicists. More than likely, very few, at that.

is wrong, your conclusion is wrong.

Not so. My conclusion is quite correct.

In fact, in a universe with at least one infinite dimension, the matter of the universe is infinite, irrespective of the amount of space between particles

How absurd.

This also falls on your incorrect definition. Furthermore you talk about space as though it were a sort of water bath in which matter is immersed and which is excluded by matter. But that is not the concept of space at all. Space, or rather space-time is the manifold on which matter-energy interacts - it isn’t excluded in the presence of matter.

I suppose the entire concept of solidity is now completely wrong. Space, I guess, is just some ethereal substance that permeates solids? Space-time is another one of those nasty abstractions, combining the physicality of space with the non-physicality of time.

Now, before you get started, I do realize that atoms do have a lot of space inside them, between the quantum energy particles, especially in the electron shell. But, that does not preclude solidity - or, must I drop a bowling ball on your toe to prove it?

I don’t think this is necessarily true. Big Bang cosmology tells us that this era in the observable universe began 13.7 billion years ago. It says nothing about the era beyond that event or in places beyond the observable universe.

Finally, something true. However, it is more logical and likely that there is/was a front side of that singularity. To the best of our knowledge, that side of it was immobile. Without mobile being there can be no time.

Since any actual infinity is made up of actual elements, then it follows that in an infinite time, there would have been an infinite number of presents (a nice concept at Christmas time) of which the current is one. An infinite set can be made up of quantised elements (a countable infinity such as the integers) abstractions]or a continuum (an uncountable infinity such as the real numbers).

Not so. The “Now” (or, “Present” (Too bad! ) is not a part of time. It is that which separates time-past from time-future. It is that between the outermost skin (so to speak) of time-past and the outermost skin of time-future. BTW, what number is infinity?

That is not what transfinite means. Transfinite is a term in set theory which means a cardinal number equal to or greater than aleph null, the cardinality of the infinite set of the natural numbers, so it is infinite. It absolutely does not mean very big and finite, by definition.

It is what was meant before Cantor’s imaginary ideas called “sets,” and set theory ruined some peoples’ minds!. Set theory is not a real reality, like the laws of thermodynamics. It doesn’t have, nor has it ever had, that union with the real world that makes it really real and not imaginary.

God bless,
jd

 

[ManOnFire]

The Atheist religion is becoming so unscientific. They’ve always refused to believe what they can’t see and now they refuse to see what they are seeing.

This is the funniest part about their beliefs: only if God exists could time and space be finite, yet that goes against their religion. It’s completely illogical to believe that something came from nothing acted upon by nothing for absolutely no reason at the beginning of time. It’s almost funny that they could believe that big bang was actually the beginning when they already know in advance that newer scientists will eventually invent the next truer theory, and so on, and so on, times a thousand, if God doesn’t exist. It’s completely illogical.

 

[wbarquez]

anyway good ways to argue the universe is in fact finite and therefor it depends on a infinite being that would be good in order to exist.

That the universe is probably finite is based on the nature of material reality as contingent and transient. Thus, there could have been a moment in the finite past when the universe, as we know it, did not exist.

The scientific evidence of an expanding, and not a recycling, universe points to the fact that the universe had a beginning and would continue to expand until it dies a natural death.

The law of entropy that points to the fact that had the universe been eternal, it would have been in a state of chaos already and would not just be 13.5 billion years old.

 

[danserr]

Wanstronian My objection to the first premise is that it is incomplete, and you have been unable to complete it without begging the question.

My objection to the second premise is that it is an unsubstantiated assertion formed by invalid extrapolation of causal axioms. It boils down to the Composition Fallacy.

My objection to the conclusion is that it is formed from unreliable and unsafe premises.

The Kalam, like all variants of the Cosmological Argument, fails under scrutiny.

Well, I don’t think it has failed yet, let me show you why.
To summarize the KCA is:
1). Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2). The universe began to exist
3). The universe has a cause of its existence

• Now consider first this point, you have often appealed (as I observe at the end of me last post) to something indefinite besides God that could come before the universe, cause it or pop into existence out of nothing. You offer no suggestion what this could be, hence no way to assess it (which makes your suggestion unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. And yet you accuse me of appealing to ignorance; surely you can see why this is unreasonable on your part. It is not enough for you to throw out a bare possibility to try to escape the argument, you must show that the negation of each premise is more plausible than the premise itself. Otherwise, the rational thing to do is accept the argument.
  -To demand complete certainty, as you do, would make science itself impossible. Imagine a scientist who successfully tested a cure for cancer. Now imagine he had a colleague who said “no, you may not conclude the drug is successful, for perhaps, some other undetermined cause explains the apparent success of the drug?” Certainly, no one would consider this a reasonable reply. And the same principle applies here.

So with this in mind, let me consider your objections again:
1). Everything that begins to exist has a cause - Why? It is continually affirmed in our experience, if it is not true, then why does everything and anything not just come into existence from nothing.
-You object that the First law of thermodynamics shows matter cannot be created or destroyed. Yet this is precisely what the Big Bang cosmology holds, that *matter began to exist *at the Big Bang. The same hold for the cosmological implications of 2nd Law and the philosophical argument I use that the universe had a beginning. The first law of thermodynamics is a physcial law, it applies once the universe exists, but such laws have no force at all, with no universe. (This is why Hawking’s view that laws like gravity caused the universe to create itself is so absurd). On the other hand “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” is not a physical principle, it is a meta-physcial principle. You ridicule this, but no do not refute it. That is very unsatisfactory.

• Next you object that somehow I must complete a set of things that begin to exist and don’t. Now you know perfectly well this is a trick on your part that I refuse to play, since to fill that set before the argument is complete would be question begging. But I need to do no such thing, hold your skepticism a moment and consider the first premise.
  (1) “everything that begins to exist has a cause”- Now this seems more plausibly true than not, (you now agree with me that quantum physics is not a counterexample), Since this is probable, all the argument requires is that I be able to show premise (2), that the universe began to exist. There is absolutely no reason I should have to begin the argument by establishing a set of things that did not begin to exist. And I do not begin by stating that God is the sole member of this “set” as you claim. I infer that only from the successful conclusion of the argument. There is not question begging at all, save that you try to trick me into it.
  So, the first premise seems more plausibly true than not. Ask yourself, is is more plausible that everything that begins to exist has a cause or not? But why should the universe be an exception (remember the taxicab fallacy). If you agree that it is, then you are committed to accepting the first premise.

2). The Universe began to exist - So the first premise seems good, what about the second? One one hand you don’t refute any of my arguments, on the other, you try to claim that no one knows how the universe came out. Now this is not enough. You have to refute my arguments, either by showing they are flawed, or by showing a way the universe could always have existed. But you haven’t at all. So if my argument is good, you are committed to believing the conclusion. Consider then my arguments:
a). The impossibility of the formation of the infinite by successive addition. The present event adds to the set of past events, but if this is the case the past cannot be actually infinite, because it is like counting to infinity, you could never actually get there. And if the number of past events is not actually infinite, then the universe had a beginning (including any potential universes that came before it).
b). The evidence for the expansion of the unviverse Now you agree that the view of most experts is that the universe (time, space, matter) spawned from a singularity. And you will not reject the view of most experts. If you are serious, then you are accepting the view that time, space, and matter began to exist at the Big Bang, which is precisely my point, so you admit this argument is good. You even try to claim is is irrelevant. hardly, it means (as most experts and you agree), that the universe began to exist.
c). Implications of the 2nd law. you don’t try to refute this, and so I gather agree with it.