tremendoustie

I will define the Universe as the whole spacetime continuum in which we exist, together with all the energy and matter within it.

There are three possibilities:

1. The Universe has always existed and is a closed system.

2. The Universe has not always existed, yet is a closed system.

3. The Universe was not a closed system, either at some point in its history or at its origin.

1. Let us assume Case 1. Now, we know that the total potential energy of a closed physical system decreases monotonically. This is known as Entropy. Also, if at any point in the history of the Universe there were any period of time over which its potential energy remained constant, the Universe would be forever frozen in that state. Thus, we may say that the total potential energy in the universe has been strictly decreasing. Taken with our assumption that the universe has always existed, however , the total potential energy in the Universe should then now be zero, which is contrary to what we observe. Thus, if the law of Entropy applies to the Universe, case 1 is false.

2. Case 2 restated says that the Universe came into existance at some finite period of time in the past, without cause.

3. According to Case 3, there is at least one system outside of the universe, which we may call a "causal agent", which has affected the Universe in some way, at some point in the past, most notably by increasing the potential energy in the universe, or by causing the Universe to occur. We must also consider any system which has affected a causal agent to be an causal agent itself. Now, we may substitute "The combined system consisting of the The Universe together with all causal agents" for "The Universe" above, and we are met with the same set of possibilities, except that because our new system is closed by definition, we may only choose between possibilities one or two.

Thus, we are left with three possibilites. Either we must accept that events may occur without any cause whatsoever, or the law of Entropy does not apply to the Universe, or the law of Entropy does not apply to a system which has affected the Universe.

In my opinion, it would be a very bad idea to hold that events may occur without cause. This would not only repudiate the basis of the scientific method, but would be an untenable position from which to form any conclusions based on experience or observation. It would be less drastic to suppose that the law of Entropy does not always apply to the Universe. This conclusion is also difficult, however, because all evidence suggests that it does. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Entropy does not apply to a system which has affected the Universe. Because all physical systems that we have observed exhibit Entropy, it is likely that this system does not closely resemble a physical system. Although this is of course not a proof, I think that this is a reasonable basis for a belief in the existance of God (we don't, of course, from this have any idea as to the character or nature of God).

"The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"
-Stephen Hawking


By the way, I'm sure we can have a reasonable, mature, interesting discussion. Please take time to revise, and to carefully consider any responses before posting. Let's be considerate and open minded.

Barefoot Bree

Welcome to IIDB, tremendoustie. I think you will find that the majority of our posters do indeed treasure reasonable, mature, interesting discussion, and are considerate and open-minded, without the need for it to be specifically stated. If one comes into the place with a chip on one's shoulder, however, it's bound to be knocked off - with a howitzer.

Hedshaker

Welcome aboard tremendoustie,

I think you'll discover the Comological Argument has already been thrashed to death on these boards but good luck.

Which god are you advocating by the way?

linwood

Why can there be no 4th possibility?

4: The universe always existed and IS NOT a closed system?

tremendoustie

Perhaps I should have been more clear; I consider this 4th possibility to also be included in the 3rd. The 3rd case simply states that the Universe is not a closed system. It may have always existed or not always existed.

Atheos

At the risk of sounding like a parrot I'd like to second Bree's assertion that the posting guidelines as well as the general tenor of IIDB is such that any suggestion that the discussion should be considerate, reasonable, mature, etc., is superfluous. Welcome to IIDB, a place of freethought, where (for the most part) we are not afraid to consider opposing viewpoints open-mindedly.

What you have presented here is a variant of the cosmological argument, but you doubtless already know that. Expressing the cosmological argument using intelligent verbiage and sophistry does nothing for the argument. It's still the same argument, boiling down to the following:

• 1 - Everything that exists began to exist at some point
• 2 - The universe begain to exist
• 3 - Therefore, something caused the universe to begin to exist
• 4 - That "something" is what men call "God".

Line 1 is an assertion, not a proven truth.
Line 2 is also an assertion, not a proven truth.
Since neither of the first two are sound, line 3 is an unwarranted conclusion.
Line 4 is another assertion, and moreover it fails the "Occam's Razor" test.

There are several problems with the cosmological argument (and your statement of it as well).

• The first problem is that it's simply an argument from ignorance (i.e., the "god of the gaps"). If we can't say with certainty how something happened then "God did it". In a simpler time people would assert that "God smote him and he died" when there was no obvious reason for someone suddenly falling dead. In our more savvy time a coroner might provide a better explanation (i.e., the individual died suddenly from a heart attack brought on by severe blockages due to high cholesterol). Similarly there was a time when people believed that God caused the sun to move through the sky. Later we learned that the earth rotates on its axis providing us with the illusion that the sun is moving across the sky.
  
  There are literally unlimited examples of things that were once beyond the ability of humans to explain, and which were attributed to the effect of god (or gods). The fact remains that just because we do not have complete answers to every phenomenon extant in the universe does not imply the existence of the supernatural.
  
  In fact, just the opposite is true. History has shown that mysteries once believed to be completely unsolvable by mankind are solved with completely rational explanations in perfect compliance with the physical world. "Where does the snow come from?" We know now. The most rational thing to assume if there is no evidence to the contrary is that there are natural explanations for the mysteries that remain unsolved at this point.
• The second problem is that the cosmological argument relies on several unsupported assertions, which I've pointed out already.
• The third problem is that the argument does not posit any reference for this "god" it espouses. Absent any definition of this god it is completely useless, as any alleged existence of said god would have no effect on the universe in general or humanity in particular. Even if one were to concede that somehow the argument proved the existence of a deity (which it doesn't) there is nothing that can be inferred about that deity.
• The fourth problem is that it fails to explain anything because of a circular fallacy. If it were true that "Everything that exists began to exist at some point" then there is no exception for this "god" that is magically posited at the end of the argument. It too, had to begin to exist. It's sort of like those old worldviews where the earth was resting on the back of a giant turtle. The next question of course was "well, what is the turtle resting on". It solves nothing.

Long winded as usual....

-Atheos

tremendoustie

Thanks for your comments, Atheos.
I actually wasn't aware of the "cosmological argument", but I've googled it so I think I have some understanding of where you're coming from.

It is not necessary to hold that everything that exists began to exist at some point. Options 1 and 3 allow for the possibility that the Universe has no beginning. I don't think the four steps you've outline really mirror what I'm saying. Let me know if I can clarify anything, but I think if you look carefully you'll see that this is actually a quite different arguement. I agree that the cosmological arguement as I've seen it stated is flawed.

I'm not saying that if we can't say how something happened then "God did it". I'm only saying that if we accept that events have causes, and the Universe obeys Entropy, then there exist some causal agent that does not exhibit Entropy. It is not nessary to call this agent God, and you are correct to note that nothing can be inferred about it. I do think, however, that since all physical systems that we have observed exhibit Entropy, it is likely that this agent is not a purely physical system.

MrWhy

My current view, much of it based on threads from this forum.

Associated with the Big Bang theory is the idea that space and time expanded as part of the universe. Space/time was not created by the BB or the universe, but is an inseparable integrated property of the universe. i.e., There was no "before" the Big Bang. There was no point in "time" when the universe did not exist. This raises doubt of the idea that the universe had a cause, since cause and the related effect presumes time.

As time regresses closer to the BB, hypothesis replaces theory, conjecture replaces hypothesis. The Big Bang instant is a mystery that's beyond our current knowledge. To speculate that it was the work of a god who has always existed only proposes an even greater mystery.

tremendoustie

If you mean that time compresses asymptotically as you regress to the big bang, I think that in the arguement it reduces to the case of an eternal universe. If you mean that some finite time ago, an event occured which just happened without any cause whatsoever, that is certainly logically consistant, but it is a view that I don't think is warrented given our observations about cause/effect. Frankly, I think the position that some causal agent exists, even if we are not aware of it now, makes the theory much more consistant with what we know about the nature of things. If we put chinks in the reliability of cause/effect, I could conclude that events I observe just happen without any cause at all. There is no longer any basis for the scientific method (upon which, by the way, the big bang theory itself rests). I'd sooner cast doubt on any other scientific principle than that one.

MrWhy

The events we currently observe usually have a cause because we see things framed in time. If time, as we see it, was not present (as before there was a universe) then how could there be cause and effect. My personal, unscientific feeling, is that we are totally off in our concept of time. Especially the infinite regression of time. There's some vital idea, or even mental capacity missing.