Click this link for TOPICAL INDEX OF POSTS

About Me

No longer take comments. Post's 'labels' are unreliable for linking or searching. Use the INDEX OF POSTS instead. A fairly accurate, but incomplete INDEX of Posts & good overview and understanding of this blog READ SOME REASONS TO REJECT ORTHODOX JUDAISM my April 2014 post or click link above. Born into an Orthodox Jewish family (1950's) and went to Orthodox Yeshiva from kindergarten thru High School plus some Beis Medrash.Became an agnostic in my 20's and an atheist later on. My blog will discuss the arguments for god and Orthodox Judaism and will provide counter arguments. I no longer take comments. My blog uses academic sources, the Torah, Talmud and commentators to justify my assertions. The posts get updated. IF YOU GET A MESSAGE THAT THE POST IS MISSING - LOOK FOR IT IN THE INDEX or search or the date is found in the address.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Kalam Cosmological Proof of God - Premises and Conclusion repudiated

Updated Thru 4/14/2019

A common formulation of the Argument:

Premise 1) Everything that began to exist has a cause for its existence

Premise 2) the universe began to exist

Conclusion 3) therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.

This argument can be repudiated for theological reasons see Kalam Cosmological proof of God repudiated by Theology

However this post will focus on the legitimacy of the premises and conclusion. 

On The Reasonableness of  Premise 1

There are quantum events which are random so there does not seem to be causes for them. For example a particle may come into being out of a vacuum, and this process seems to be random. 
Another example is radioactive decay - when the energy level of a nucleus drops, it emits a photon. It is a probabilistic process.

Many things that began to exist do not seem to have a cause. For example, I weave a coat. The cause can be me, but who caused me ? My parents, But then who caused my parents ? And we have not even begun to ask about the material for the coat. The point is there are many things we observe that are in transition from one form into another or have no discernible cause. Arguably, is there really anything we observe that actually begins to exist ?

Even if our every day experience confirms Premise 1 it would only  apply to our everyday experiences which involves parts of the Universe. However, we have no experience with entire Universes to claim  such a system needs a cause. A bar of soap can be made from fats,sodium hydroxide and water. The behavior of soap differs greatly from its constituents. Thus 'Kalam's conclusion' does not follow from the premises. Stated another way, the word “Everything” in Premise 1 is too comprehensive.

On the Reasonableness of Kalam Premise 2  

There are many cosmologists that do not agree the Universe began to exist. Some  have offered models with our Universe not having a beginning. Examples include cyclic models, Caroll and Chen model and others.

{ETA 4/14/2019 From A First Course in General Relativity 2009 by Bernard Schutz Second Edition Page 357  “This [within one Planck time 10^−43 seconds  of the Big Bang] is the domain of quantum gravity, and it may well turn out that, when we have a quantum theory of the gravitational interaction, we will find that the universe has a history before what we call the Big Bang.”}

Professor of Physics Sean Carroll - Beginning on page 50 of From Eternity to Here:  "It might be that the Universe did not exist before the Big Bang [BB], just as conventional general relativity seems to imply. Or it might very well be - as I tend to believe, for reasons that will become clear - that space and time did exist before the BB; what we call the BB is a kind of transition from one phase to another."   "The correct deduction is not that general relativity predicts a singularity, but that general relativity predicts that the universe evolves into a configuration where  general relativity itself breaks down."

Professor of Physics Victor Stenger is also of the opinion that the Universe need not have had a beginning. ( See for example page 73 of his book Quantum Gods 2009)

Also Stenger in his book God and the Folly of Faith 2012 - beginning on page 178  Regarding the oft cited Borde, Guth Vilenkin Theorem he explains as follows. "Again, this theorem is derived from general relativity and so is inapplicable to the issue of origins. Furthermore it is disputed by other authors [he cites Aguirre, Gratton as examples]." 
Stenger also explains - " I asked Vilenkin personally if his theorem requires a beginning. His email reply: "No. But it proves that the expansion of the Universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating the the Universe was contracting prior to some time". This is exactly what a number of existing models for the uncreated origin of our Universe do." 

{ETA 1/3/2016 Page 143-148 in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism Petto and Godfrey Editors 2007.  Physics Professor Victor Stenger - "Several cosmological scenarios have been published by established scholars in reputable scientific journals that allow for a universe to appear as an uncaused quantum event from an initial state of zero energy (Akatz and Pagels 1982;...).  "It is conventional to label the time of the Big Bang as t=0. However, nothing we know demands that this was the beginning of time..., or that no universe existed at earlier times."
"No scientific basis exists for assuming a universe did not exist before the Big Bang" }

{ETA 1/23/2016

April 28, 2012 by Sean Carroll -  A Universe from Nothing? "...the physical universe can perfectly well be self-contained; it doesn’t need anything or anyone from outside to get it started, even if it had a “beginning.”  " }

{ETA 11/13/2018 From the 2010 Book The Void by Frank Close Professor of Theoretical Physics Oxford 

Page 152 - According to Quantum Theory Universe could be a huge vacuum fluctuation. If this is so then who is to say that ours is the one and only Universe. 

Page 158 “So our best data are consistent with the theory that out large-scale Universe erupted thru inflation.”  “There is no reason to believe that our inflationary Universe is, was, a one off event. There could be many other such Universes that have erupted in similar fashion to this but which are beyond our awareness.”     The book mentions the  Hawking and Hartle model - there is no beginning of the Universe. It simply exists.}

In short, our knowledge of the very early Universe is uncertain enough that Premise 2 is in doubt. 

The Kalam’s Conclusion

For discussion purposes 1,2,3 below accept the premises  and assume the logic of the Kalam is sound. There are the following objections to concluding that the Kalam proves a God.

1) We can only  infer the universe has a cause; a cause of the kind as found in Premise 1. And Premise 1 causes must occur within time and space, since we have no knowledge of causes external to time and space. This I think would preclude a Judaeo-Islamic-Christian god {ETA 12/7/2018 at least according to those Theologians who hold G-d is outside of time and space. Also in regards to premise 1 'cause(s)". We can only  infer the universe has a cause; a cause of the kind as found in Premise 1.The causes we know about involve the material things. This I think would preclude a Judaeo-Islamic-Christian god  at least according to those Theologians who hold G-d is not material.}

2) We can only  infer the universe has a cause, not that the cause is some version of a Judaeo-Islamic-Christian god. The cause may be a monster. Consider life on earth operates on the concept of mutual consumption, and in common parlance the survival of the fittest. Also the earth with all it’s natural disasters and difficult conditions is a very inhospitable and dangerous place for living things.

3) Even if we can not provide a cause for the Universe, claiming  God is the cause is called the God of the Gaps Fallacy. 

4) Finally, the cause need not be something supernatural. It may have been a quantum fluctuation or quantum tunneling or some other natural phenomenon. (See for example Hartle-Hawking or Krauss or Carroll-Chen or Aguirre-Gratton or Stenger or Vilenkin for natural explanations of the Universe). Perhaps as scientists resolve the science in the very early universe the cause may become apparent.

"Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement." ( Does the Universe Need God? Professor Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology)

{ETA 12/27/2016  From Seven Brief Lessons on Physics By Carlo Rovelli 2014, 2016. The Theoretical Physicist Carlo is one of the founders of Loop Quantum Gravity Theory (LQG). Beginning on page 39 - Einstein developed relativity  to resolve the conflict between the equations of electromagnetism and mechanics. Today there is a conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. A group of researchers are working on reconciling the conflict thru Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). Consider a star as it begins to run out of fuel and starts to collapse. Per Loop Quantum Gravity infinitesimal points/singularities don’t exist, so the star’s matter will only condense up to a point (called a Planck Star) wherein  quantum fluctuations of space-time balance the weight of matter.  But a Planck star is not stable and it can then begin to expand again. When our Universe was extremely compressed, quantum theory generates a repulsive force and this can create a Big Bang. Thus our  Universe may have been born from a preceding Universe that compressed under it’s own weight into a tiny space before expanding into the Universe we observe.  

[LQG can provide a natural explanation why the BB occurred and what existed before the BB. So we need not posit a God to start the BB.]}

{ETA 6/15/2014 Why is there something rather than nothing ? Maybe the "something" (for example quantum fields) always existed.  Also, some Cosmologists are finding that our Universe may really be nothing because the energy and matter in the Universe is offset by gravity giving just about nothing.} 

{ETA 3/31/2019 From  Part 3 ofCosmology: The History and Nature of Our Universe By Professor of Astronomy Mark Whittle 2008 
Beginning Page 33 - The sum of all energy and matter in the Universe after including gravity energy is roughly zero. The Universe is in a sense empty. Inflation was the mechanism that split 'nothing' into positive matter and negative energy. The book also mentions Our Universe as a random quantum fluctuation from  preinflation fields and that other quantum fluctuations may make other Universes.} 

{ETA 6/18/2014 There are so called “laws of nature”. Does not a law require a law giver ?

Scientists tell us the laws such as conservation of energy, mass, momentums are a consequence of certain symmetries. For example there is no privileged place regarding when and where physics experiments are performed. 

{ETA 8/10/2018 Physics calculus by Eugene Hecht 1996 page 144 "Conservation of Linear Momentum arises from the homogeneity of empty space. " Page 300 "Conservation of Angular momentum arises from the isotropy of free space." Isotropy - physics indifferent to orientation. Page 347 Homogeneity of time - temporal displacement symmetry provides for conservation of Energy.} 

{ETA 8/13/2018 From Page 339 of Physics-calculus by Eugenr Hecht 1996: Gravity potential energy is negative. If the total of all other energy is equal in magnitude, the net energy of the Universe is zero. "It follows such a system could have spontaneously appeared out of 'nothingness', without violating energy conservation." }

The human legal system was created by humans, this does not mean physical laws require a giver. It is a false analogy since we have experience concerning the origins legal  laws but not physic laws.

According to some Cosmologists the “laws of nature” could have been different. For example certain multiverse theories.

If there are laws of nature they just could have always just been.

Finally, saying God gave us the laws is the god of the gaps fallacy. }

Here are some of my related posts Kalam Cosmological proof of God repudiated by Theology,  Proof of God From the Big Bang, Genesis and the Big Bang , Proof of God from Thermodynamics

No comments: