Professor Michael Sudduth

Readings in Religious Epistemology

Handout #10

We live on the earth. The earth is one of the several planets that orbit the sun along with thousands of other smaller chunks of matter, stellar dust, and ice particles. Our sun, a medium sized star, is one of many of millions of other stars that constitute our galaxy. Our galaxy belongs to a cluster of nearer galaxies, and there are millions of such galaxies and galaxy clusters strewn across hundreds of millions of light years of space. The distances are great, often unfathomable, and reveal the vastness of the physical system of which we occupy a miniscule part at best, much like a grain of sand on an infinite shore. This is the Universe. It is a complex physical system of material objects of varying sizes and characteristics that are connected in space and time, and which behave and interact according to a relatively small number of physical laws.

The cosmological argument attempts to argue from the existence of the Universe to the existence of God as the cause or explanation of the Universe's existence. There are two general forms of such arguments. The first, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, is an argument from the temporal beginning of the Universe to God as a generative cause of the Universe. The second form of the cosmological argument argues to the existence of God from the fact of the Universe's existence, whether for finite or infinite time. Here God is conceived of as the sustaining or preserving cause of the Universe's existence.

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The basic argument:

1. Whatever has a beginning to existence has a cause of its coming into existence.
2. The Universe had a beginning.

-------------------------------------------

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its coming into existence.

Furthermore,

4. God is the most likely cause for the Universe' existence.

The argument originated amongst some medieval philosophers and has made a comeback in 20^th century philosophy of religion. The argument (1)-(3) is valid, but is it sound? (Are the premises true?) And even if we grant (3), is the move to (4) legitimate?

Bill Craig and other theists take (1) to be intuitively obvious. Ex nihil, nihil fit (out of nothing comes nothing). In fact, among those philosophers and scientists who believed that the Universe had no beginning (and who would deny (2)) it has been common to accept (1).

But contemporary physics presents a potential objection to (1). The objection emerges from the field of quantum physics, which studies the nature and behavior of subatomic particles. Sub-atomic particles are subject to the so-called Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (after the German physicist Werner Heisenberg). According to this principle it is not possible to determine the future state of sub-atomic particles. Take something as basic as predicting the future state of an electron. This requires knowing its current position and momentum (position and momentum are properties that form a pair). But according to the uncertainty principle, if one tries accurately to determine the position of an electron, there will be great uncertainty about its momentum (and vice-versa). So no future state of entities at the quantum level can be exactly determined. It is then concluded that the entire Universe itself, since it arises from a quantum state, could have come into existence without any cause. (See below, Big Bang Cosmology)

In Aristotelian and modern cosmology (up to the early part of the 20^th century), the Universe was believed to be temporally infinite, i.e., having no beginning in time. With the establishment of Big Bang Cosmology in the 20^th century, the idea of a temporally infinite Universe seemed quite implausible. It certainly seems that the Universe had a beginning.

The dominant theory in contemporary cosmology regarding the origin of our Universe maintains that the Universe came into existence rather abruptly between 15 to 20 billion years ago in a cosmic explosion from a very simple state in which time and space were infinitely shrunk. This compact, ultra-microscopic particle of pure energy exploded, starting an expansion that continues to this day. (Click here for diagram). As the fireball cooled matter formed from energy and took the form of heavier particles, clouds of gas, stars, and galaxies. This theory, though implied by some of Albert Einstein’s equations, can be traced to the 1920s when astronomers discovered that the observable galaxies were each moving away from each other. It is not as though they are rushing through empty space, but the space between galaxies is actually stretching. The picture implies – when run backwards – that in the distant past the entire Universe was compressed into a single point of infinite density, what mathematicians call a singularity. Space, time, and matter-energy all have their origin in that great cosmic event known as the Big Bang.

The Big Bang suggests that the Universe had a beginning. The ancient Greeks of course denied this. The Universe was eternal for them, as well as for most modern scientists prior to the 1920s. This was partly based on the belief that matter could not be created, could not come into existence from nothing. But the eternal Universe became increasingly challenged by the mid-19^th century when it became widely recognized that physical processes are irreversible. In this way, the Universe as a whole is a lot like your alarm clock or car. It may be going now, but one day it will stop working, and there is an end to the number of fix-its and tune-ups it can get. Physical systems move toward disorder (a principle codified in the second law of thermodynamics). If the Universe has always existed, then it is likely that every physical process would have already run its course a finite time ago. But in that case we would not observe them now. But we do. The Big Bang took care of many of the paradoxes that existed for astronomers and cosmologists who held to the static or cyclical universe theory.

Of course the Big Bang is, strictly speaking, consistent with a temporally infinite Universe. As some scientists since the 1920s have argued, if we imagine that Big Bang as an explosion outward, we can imagine an implosion in which an expanding Universe reaches its maximum state of outward stretch and then begins to fall back on itself and collapses. The so-called Oscillating Universe theory asserts a series of expansion-contraction phases of different Universes, from Big Bangs to Big Crunches to Big Bangs. So, for instance, the Universe though expanding today, may eventually reach a point in which expansion halts and the entire Universe begins to contract under its own gravity and all the galaxies begin to move inward toward each other. The Universe will have moved from an expansion phase to a contraction phase. Alternatively, the Universe may go on expanding forever, or for a finite time and end in a cool death in which everything eventually burns out. There are serious liabilities with this theory. For instance, a singularity would have to be avoided in any given big crunch because a singularity would prevent any bouncing back of a Universe into an expansion face. Since we know of no physical law that is strong enough to halt the collapse prior to a singularity, an oscillating Universe seems highly unlikely.

So it looks like (2) is true. Or does it?

More recently the Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking claims that the Universe, though temporally finite, has no boundaries and so in a sense has no beginning. Hawking accepts the idea of a Big Bang, but without the implication that time has beginning. Einstein held that space, though finite, is closed and so has no boundary. Three-dimensional space is like a two-dimensional sphere. To get an idea of this, take a piece of paper to represent space and then fold it around onto itself. Hawking holds that the same is true about space and time. Among other things, this implies that one could travel through time. If you went far enough in one direction on a sphere you would come back to the same place; if you went far enough into the future, then you would return to the past. But more importantly, for the present consideration, is the consequence that time has no abrupt or clearly defined beginning. The Big Bang theory as explained above suggests that time came into being abruptly, at a definite point. But this isn’t the only possibility

If we run the expanding Universe model backwards, then we eventually get to a point where the entire Universe was shrunk to very, very minute dimensions. Here we would be dealing with phenomena on the atomic scale. But the behavior of atomic and sub-atomic particles is subject to unpredictable fluctuations, what above I referred to as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). More specifically, measurable quantities like momentum, position, time, and energy are subject to fluctuations in their values. Take something as basic as predicting the future state of an electron. This requires knowing its current position and momentum (position and momentum are properties that form a pair). But according to the uncertainty principle, if one tries accurately to determine the position of an electron, there will be great uncertainty about its momentum (and vice-versa). So no future state of entities at the quantum level can be exactly determined. But it also would seem to follow that quantum fluctuations would have had a significant impact on the structure and evolution of the very, very young Universe, somewhere around the time the Universe was 10^-43 seconds old (so-called Planck time) and about 10^-33 cm across (Planck distance). At this time, quantum fluctuations would have a profound affect on the nature of space and time, and thus on the origin of the Universe.

Einstenian relativity involves three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time unified into a four-dimensional space-time. Here space is physically distinct from time, and we are acquainted with this in our everyday, ordinary experience. My moving driving from Burlington, VT (leaving around 9:00am on May 15th) to Boston, MA and back to Burlington again involves my returning to the same location, but not the same time (9:00am, May 15^th). At the Planck scale, however, the distinction between time and space gets blurred so to speak, so blurred that there is no definite or clearly defined moment at which time begins. For there to be a clearly defined beginning of the Universe, there would have to be a clearly defined moment at which time and space are distinct. But this is precisely what quantum physics seems to deny.

We can represent one Big Bang model of the expanding Universe as a cone.  The apex represents the singularity (the state of infinite compression) and horizontal sections through the cone represent successive moments in the history of the Universe at which times the diameter of the Universe is increased due to expansion. You can imagine a straight line running from the bottom of the cone to the top, representing the direction of time. On this model, there is a single apex that represents a definite moment at which time and space are distinguished. There is a beginning, an abrupt appearance of space and time. However, the alternative representation of the Big Bang according to quantum cosmology would be to smear out the sharpness of the apex, creating a kind of hemisphere. The radius of the hemisphere would represent Planck time. This model is very much like the first one above the hemisphere, the region that represents the expanding the Universe after the early quantum state. But at the bottom, time curves into space (at the horizontal). Working the other way, time "gradually" separates off from space as the hemisphere turns into the cone. There is no clearly defined beginning of time, but time is bounded in the past.

Two consequences should be noted here. First, as noted above the Universe could have popped into existence as the result of fluctuations at the quantum level. As quantum events are undetermined (exactly), so the Universe itself might in effect have no clearly defined cause. Secondly, on Hawking’s view, the singularity vanishes and is replaced by a sphere that represents the gradual emergence of time from space. So, although the Universe is temporally finite, it has no beginning. Both points carry interesting consequences for theism.

Hawking writes:

Contemporary physics and cosmology, then, presents somewhat of an odd pair of claims in relation to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. On the one hand, the general idea of Big Bang Cosmology suggests a beginning to our Universe and its history. But on the other hand, some cosmologists argue that quantum physics suggests that events can happen without a cause, and that our Universe may itself be the result of random fluctuations in a quantum world.

1. In response to the objection to premise (1) of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, there is considerable doubt whether the uncertainty principle logically implies that things, including quantum events, can happen without any cause. At best it would remove a fully determining cause. The uncertainty principle establishes indeterminacy in nature, but indeterminacy is logically consistent with causality. Many events are brought about by human choices, and many such choices are thought to be free choices (not fully determined by antecedent causes), but in that case the events brought about by free choice are themselves not necessitated by prior causes. But this indeterminacy is logically consistent with such events being caused, caused by human choices and actions.
2. In response to the objection to premise (2) of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the prior response also provides a rebuttal to Hawking type argument that employs the uncertainty principle to argue that the Universe itself may not have had a beginning. "No clearly defined beginning" does not entail no beginning at all. Secondly, premise (2) is intended to deny the view that the Universe is infinitely old, but this denial is logically consistent with Hawking's position.
3. Hawking commits an even more serious blunder when he argues that if the Universe had no beginning, there would be no need for a creator. It is true that if the Universe has a beginning, we can ask who or what was responsible for getting it going or started. And true enough, if the Universe had no beginning, then we could not ask who or what was responsible for getting it started. In the case of a temporally finite Universe, one that has a beginning, we are naturally led to ask, "what caused that beginning?" We want to know about a generative cause of the Universe’s existence, or more specifically the Universe’s first state, the singularity. But if the Universe has existed for infinite time or finite time but without a beginning, we can ask a different kind of question. Why does it exist? It is at this point that God can come into the picture. If the Universe has a beginning, we can ask what caused it to begin to exist. If the Universe has no beginning, we can ask what is responsible for its existence (as long as it exists)?

But even if we were to grant the soundness of the argument (1)-(3), must we maintain (4) as well. After all, an atheist might accept everything except (4). Perhaps the Universe does have a cause, but maybe the cause of the Universe is not God.

In point of logic, it certainly seems possible that there is a cause to the Universe's existence, but that God is not this cause. But the advocate of the cosmological argument need not maintain that God must be the cause, only that this is the more reasonable conclusion to draw. But what are the genuine options here?

1. An abstract world of mathematical equations

Some physicists and cosmologists attempt to derive the existence of the Universe by necessity from an abstract realm of mathematical equations. As these mathematical truths are necessary, so it is necessary that there be a Universe that conforms to them in its fundamental laws. But there are problems with this proposal.

1. Although mathematical equations might be necessary truths, the claim that the Universe is necessary is highly dubious. If true, it logically entails that no other Universe is possible. Even if mathematical laws are necessary and so must exist, the matter/energy to which they "can" apply presumably take on many forms. It seems quite absurd to suppose that if there is only one set of consistent quantum laws that the Universe it produces necessarily contains a Saint Michael's College at some time or another, much less our particular solar system. In short, the physical cosmos certainly does not seem necessary. After all, there is no contradiction is describing a Universe with different physical characteristics than the actual one.
2. This raises another important point for the "necessary universe" hypothesis: how can a set of logically necessary mathematical laws give rise to or generate an apparently logically contingent Universe? There is some truth in the idea that the Universe exists because of something necessary. But that which is necessary is not the physical universe itself (as already argued). Mathematics is necessary, like all logical possibilities are, but abstract, impersonal entities cannot bring contingent reality into existence (as already pointed out). In human experience, we find that intention bridges the gap between ideas or the conceptual realm and physical realities, so why shouldn't intentionality be responsible for this with respect to the existence of a complex physical system such as the Universe? If there is something that is necessary that is the source of the Universe, then it is likely to be both necessary and personal, which freely created the Universe.

But would this personal, necessary being likely be God? As Hume pointed out, you wouldn't need an infinite cause to generate a fine effect. What is required, of course, is a very powerful being, and a being beyond space and time (as we know it). But he might be like the Q in Star Trek the Next Generation, a super powerful intelligent being. Perhaps it creates Universes for a living or something like that. But this wouldn't be an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being. It would not be God. Of course, if all contingency is grounded in necessity, then this being would have to be necessary, either such that it is not possible for it not to exist (logically necessary) or such that it depends on nothing for its own existence (metaphysically necessary).

The interest of simplicity favors postulating as few entities as possible, and it might also favor a being who is without limit (infinite) since limitation is determined by something. A being with power to degree N (but less than infinite) would raise the question as to why the being's power extends only to degree N and not beyond that. A being with infinite power does not raise such questions. Moreover, though the cosmological argument does not by itself favor postulating a "good" being, if the evidence base is allowed to include the Universe's order, this may be precisely what we would expect for a good being as creator but not some powerful being who is not good. But the Kalam cosmological argument does appear to favor some single source of the Universe's existence that is both necessary and personal. Other considerations might favor a theistic version of such a creator or ultimate origin.

But suppose the Universe had no beginning, or suppose that its existence could be explained in terms of some prior Universe, and so on ad infinitum. Would the cosmological argument be any less powerful? No. The ultimate cosmic question may be posed as inquiring into the existence of the Universe, whether for infinite or finite time, whether subject to Hawking's quantum qualifications or some variant of the oscillating Universe theory.

The first that should be recognized vis-à-vis all scientific explanations of the Universe is that there is a sense in which they are genuine explanations. For instance, there is a sense in which the Universe’s existence today is explained by its existence at some earlier state, plus the appropriate laws of nature entailing its existence today. The existence of the physical universe today is explained by its prior states plus certain laws of nature that deterministically predict that it will exist today. More generally, the existence of the universe U at any time tn is explained by the following two facts:

1. U exists at t1.

2. There are physical laws L which give an equation like U at t1 + L => U at t2 (where t2 is a later state of the universe).

If the universe is infinitely old, then there is an infinite succession of states of U, each of which deterministically follows from a prior state plus some physical laws L. If the universe is finite in age, then the universe has a chain of explanation which terminates with the universe’s first state and the physical laws operational at that point. So the Big Bang theory provides an explanation of the development of the Universe given some initial ultra-microcosmic physical state S* and some fundamental physical law L*.

But this explanation of any given state of the Universe does not address the larger cosmic question: why is there a succession of states of the Universe? Leibniz, for instance, claimed that we cannot find in the parts of a thing a sufficient explanation of the whole. It is one thing to explain why a particular member of a series exists, it is another to explain the existence of the whole series itself. Suppose a book of Geometry has always existed, and one copy of the book is copied from another and handed down, and so on ad infinitum. We now ask, where did the geometry book come from? If appeal is made either to a previous member or the whole series of copied books, we have not answered the question of where the geometry book as such has come from, for we still do not known ultimately why the geometry book as such exists. We only know that this particular book has come from that one, and so on. Each state of the universe might have an explanation in an earlier state, plus laws of nature, but that does not tell us why there are any states at all (whether for infinite or finite time).

1. A contingent universe exists.
2. Contingent things that exist require a cause for their existence.
3. The Universe is contingent.

==================================

4. The Universe requires a cause for its existence. (from, 1-3)

6. Therefore, it is likely that God exists. (from 4,5)

Schematically this may be represented as follows: 

­ ­ ­ ­

. > . . .S5 => S4 => S3 => S2 => S1

S5-S1 represent states of the universe at distinct times. Laws of nature bring about the development of one state of the universe into another. God is responsible for L (for as long as the universe exists, whether for infinite or finite time), and thus God is conceived of the ultimate cause or sustaining cause of the universe. Hawking is therefore incorrect when he suggests that the only role for a God would be to start off the Universe. Even if the Universe has no beginning (and so no role for God to play in getting it going) God could enter the picture as an explanation for why the Universe exists at all, for however long it has existed, with or without a beginning. This is the non-Kalam cosmological argument.

We are faced with a very basic question in philosophy. Is there an ultimate explanation for the existence of the Universe? And if so, is there any reason to believe that that explanation involves the existence of God?

Two initial objections present themselves.

1. To think that the universe has a cause because all contingent things do is a logical fallacy of composition (what is true of the part is true of the whole). RESPONSE: The whole does not always have the same characteristics as the parts, as the inference from <all the bricks in the wall are small>, therefore <the wall is small> is a fallacy. But sometimes the whole does have characteristics of the part, e.g., the brick wall is made of bricks after all. In this latter case, if the bricks ceased to exist, the wall would too. But the contingency of the universe is like this, if the parts of the universe ceased to exist, so would the universe itself. So the universe is contingent. It could cease to exist; it might not have existed at all. Why it exists is therefore a proper question.

2. We can never reach an answer to the question about the origin of the cosmos as a whole because the universe is a unique object and we can only reach rational conclusions about things that belong to kinds. RESPONSE: If this were true, then we could never reach any kind of conclusion about the universe (its size, mass, rate of expansion, etc), nor could we even come to conclusions about the nature of the human race. But every object is unique under some description. Although we can describe the universe as a unique object (as I can describe the object in front of me as the computer belonging to Michael Sudduth located a certain distance from the ground and front door of Sudduth's apartment), we can also describe it in terms which makes questions about the whole both intelligible and in principle soluble. The universe consists of certain objects which have the same properties (mass, density, etc). The universe itself has these properties, since the universe just is the complex system of physical objects and the laws of their behavior.

The non-Kalam cosmological argument raises the same sort of problems with respect to moving from <the Universe has a cause for its existence> to <God is the cause of the existence of the Universe>. The same sort of considerations will be relevant here as discussed above.

We have already noted (see handout #9) that inference to the best explanation is an acceptable mode of inferential reasoning, especially when reasoning to unobservable entities from observational data or evidence. Applying this to determining whether it is likely that God is the cause of the Universe requires asking two questions:

1. If God exists, would we expect a Universe?
2. If God did not exist, would we not expect a Universe?

Since God's creating the Universe is usually regarded as a free act, it is difficult to argue that we would expect a Universe given that God exists. The second question will depend largely on the likelihood of the Universe existing whether God exists or not, and this is what we might refer to as the prior probability of the Universe existing. Prior probabilities are notoriously controversial. But if simplicity is a factor in determining prior probabilities, then one might argue as follows. "Nothing" is more simple than "something," but the Universe is not only something but a very complex something. Hence, it is striking that it should exist at all. Moreover, the Universe's complexity is not reduced by tracing its current state (or its various states throughout the last 15 billion years or so) to a simple ultra-microscopic Universe. For that state is, given all that comes from it, of great complexity itself, for it contains in it all the mathematical elegance and beauty of the cosmos. But a God hypothesis brings a degree of intelligibility to this picture. Although it can't easily be argued that a Universe is likely if there is a God, it can be argued that it is quite unlikely if there is no God.

This is clearly a modest conclusion, but perhaps the argument can be strengthened by making part it part of a cumulative case argument with a broader evidence base. After all, the relevant facts in need of explanation are not only that there exists a Universe, but that the Universe exhibits widespread and significant order (such as exemplified in its basic laws), and which is finely calibrated to be conducive to the evolution of life, especially intelligent life.