thomaq

When it comes to the existence of the universe, the naturalist explanation seems to be irrational.

1. the universe “sprang” into existence out of nothing approx. 13.7 billion years ago

or

2. the universe has always existed

2a. the universe has always existed and things in the universe changed in relation to other things (time existed)

2b. the universe existed in a static state (no change, no time)
(universe as used here could also be the “timeless singularity” since universe is defined as: everything that exists, and from this “timeless singularity” came the universe as we know it approx. 13.7 billion years ago).



1. Is irrational because “somethingness” cannot come to being from “pure nothingness”. Within this state of pure nothingness is the absence of possibility, potentiality etc. If “somethingness” or “existence” has a beginning, it must be logically preceded by “nothingness”. According to (1.) the universe did have a beginning (13.7 billion years ago) and thus according to (1.) the beginning was logically preceded by “nothingness”. Therefore (1.) is irrational.

1a. the universe is the totality of existence
1b. the universe began to exists 13.7 billion years ago
1c. therefore, the universe is necessarily logically preceded by nothingness

This renders option (1.) irrational.


2a. the universe (including space/time) has always existed.

This is irrational due to the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite amount of moments. Here is a cheesy example that illustrates the point. If I am in an infinitely big room, with an infinite amount of people who are all standing up, in order for me to sit down, everyone else has to sit down first. When will I be able to sit down if an infinite amount of people have to sit down first? Never. If an infinite amount of moments have to occur in order for the present to exist, when will the present exist? Never. The present exists, therefore there have not been an infinite amount of moments.

2b. the universe existed in a static state (no change, no time). Call this the singularity if you like.

A. If the universe exists now in a dynamic state, then it is irrational for the universe to have existed in a static state, unless there is some reason for it to change from one to the other.
B. It is more rational to believe that the universe is currently in a dynamic state than a static state.
C. Therefore, it is irrational to think that the universe existed in a static state.

I understand this is presupposing that causality would apply to the singularity. One might say that causality began as a result of the shift from static to dynamic. What reason is there for this assertion? This would seem to be an appeal to quantum mechanics, or spontaneity. However, if causality does not apply to the singularity, why does spontaneity?


*this is a thread meant to examine naturalism. lets keep this a theism free thread. (theists are welcome, but not theism) there are plenty of threads that talk about theism.

Deke

From nature, humans have gained information that seems to demonstrate a finite lifespan for the universe, apparently, she’s about 14 billion years old. What humans haven’t gained from nature is information indicating why she’s here at all or what caused her to happen. There seems to be an awful lot of material in the universe, and it’s easy enough to imagine that at some point, long ago in time and space, all of this matter was condensed into a point. And further, this point underwent a very rapid expansion, creating space and time along the way, until May 23rd, 2003. This seems to accord nicely with our body of scientific knowledge.

But it doesn’t tell us how all that matter got there in the first place. What or who stuffed all that matter so tightly into a point in the first place? And from where did that what or who get all the matter, such that it could be stuffed into a point? Indeed, we all hold dear, science’s conservation laws of mass and energy.

There are two modes of thinking with which to ponder this unanswered conundrum: one that pours from a natural well, and one that dunks its bucket into a supernatural well. People of a certain mindset have the expectation that natural solutions underpin all questions, and people of another mindset expect that a supernatural solutions is to be had (indeed many think a supernatural explanation already exists, and has for some time now).

Thomaq is trying to demonstrate that a natural explanation is logically impossible, therefore people with such an expectation are thinking irrationally.

I would offer that if history is any teacher, things that have seemed beyond nature have always been folded into her. Many years ago, supernatural explanations for things were everywhere; certain people were absolutely sure that Apollo pulled the sun across the sky with his chariot – for how else could such a miraculously grand thing as the sun move? A natural explanation was beyond expectation for these people, because they expected the supernatural.

Regarding the existence of our causal universe, many people expect there to be a supernatural explanation – for how else can an effect be without a cause? But in addition to being causal, our universe also exhibits a propensity for consistency – that is, gravity works in the delta quadrant just as it does here at home. It seems irrational then, to think that simply because we humans don’t have a ‘natural’ explanation for an existent causal universe, the universe eschewed this consistency at some point long ago. It seems irrational to expect that because we don’t have a physical explanation, a super-physical one must exist.

MHO,

Deke

thomaq

i am not asserting that a god exists, there are other threads that can deal with that.


1. good, we have established a beginning
2. this one doesnt make much sense, "long ago IN TIME and SPACE...matter was condensed into a point.......underwent expansion.....CREATING TIME AND SPACE. but i think i know what you mean.
3. it is this mindset that i am examining the reasons for
4. this is not really true. it is slightly different. i am trying to see if naturalism ITSELF is rational or irrational. i am not trying to show that it is logically impossible, i am just trying to show that "as of now - this point in human history" it is irrational.
5. it seems like based on number 5 above, that you would agree that as of "now" it is irrational, and will be until human knowledge increases?

Shadowy Man

Just because naturalism doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean it isn't rational.

I don't know what the origin of the universe is. The "age" of the universe is one of several parameters in the standard cosmological model.

This model helps us understand why the cosmic background radiation looks the way it does, and why the other properties of the universe look the way they do. But it doesn't answer why it is here at all.

DoubleDutchy

If this were true Achilles still would not have overtaken the tortoise.

thomaq

here are some quotes that i feel effectively deal with xeno's paradox.


ContraTheos
New User
Registered: March 2003
Location: Earth

not one "Actual" infinity I can think of.

Xeno's paradox (all the little half-way points between halfway point) aren't actual. they are abstractions of our perceptions a product of our mind trying to impose perceptions on reality. Halfway points exist only whjere they are at. any comparision relatively is an imposition of a relationship that "actually" doesn't exist, especially concerning a singular object and its so-called constituent half-ways.

Sicknss Unto Despair
New User
Registered: May 2003
Location: California
Posts: 3
As seen in the solution of Zeno's paradox, in order to have the sum of an infinite set of numbers produce a finite result, one needs to begin with two points (a,b) and then divide, with the number in the denomentator increasing towards positive infinity ( i.e. (b-a)/n0, (b-a)/(n0+n1), (b-a)/(n0+n1+n2), (b-a)/(n0+n1+n2...nn ) ). However this is not an actual infinite, we started with something finite, and divided by increasing the denomenator towards positive infinity. In order to produce the finite sum we needed to start with the finite sum.

thomaq

1. i am not saying that " because naturalism doesn't have all the answers" it is irrational. i am examining whether or not the physical claims of naturalism match up with the metaphysical implications of naturalism itself. so far it does not seem like they do, and therefore naturalism seems to be irrational.
2. nor do i. thats why i'm examining naturalism to see if that philosophical perspective can come through for us. so far it seems irrational.
3. i'm not interested in "why" so much as "how".

The AntiChris

There are a number of problems with your proposition not least of which is your assertion that the "irrational" explanations for the existence of the universe are "the" claims of naturalism rather than simply two possible explanations.

More fundamentally, you would need to demonstrate that there exists a "rational" explanation for the existence of the universe and that naturalism necessarily precludes this explanation. If you can't, then all you've demonstrated is that all worldviews are irrational.

Chris

Bill

In order to refute your "sprang out of nothing" conjecture, you presume (in 1a) that "the universe is the totality of existence." Since this is a definitional assertion, there is nothing to argue with here. However, I intend to stick you with that definition as we discuss 2a, which is the philosophical option which I believe is necessarily the case.

I agree with your definition of what the universe is (as I quote, above) and I agree with you that "sprang out of nothing" is irrational. Even those who presume that the Big Bang exists due to a fluctuation within a quantum vacuum must necessarily presume the existence of the quantum vacuum in order to generate that fluctuation. Something must pre-exist in order to maintain causality.

Now, many atheists make the mistake of extending quantum uncertainty into a total lack of causality. You just can't push quantum uncertainty quite that far. You can speak of quantum causality in terms of "borrowing energy" but there still must be a "something" from which to borrow or else quantum uncertainty runs up against the same objections you present in your argument 1.

Accordingly, I propose to defend your option "2a. the universe (including space/time) has always existed." Keep in mind, please, that I'm holding you to your own definition of "the universe is the totality of existence."

Your objection to 2a is the Kalam cosmological argument, originally proposed by Muslim philosophers long before Leibnitz and Newton invented the Calculus. Since Calculus is still not very well understood by most people, folks like William Lane Craig can get away with resurrecting this ancient Muslim argument in public debate.

The difficulty we have with 2a is the whole concept of an infinite amount of time. "There are no actual infinities" is the usual objection. However, we live in a finite (but unbounded) space/time continuum (note that I did not say "universe" here, as I would have contridicted our agreed meaning of that word if I had, and I'm trying to avoid equivocating the word "universe"). Einstein showed at least that much about the space/time continuum within which we live. And living, as we do, in a "finite (but unbounded)" space/time continuum, we have no contact with actual infinities. It is thus not surprising that our intuition argues that actual infinities do not exist.

However, it is correct to follow our intuition in this regard? I don't think so. When we discuss that portion of the universe ("the totality of existence") which exists outside of the "finite (but unbounded)" space/time continuum within which we find ourselves existing, then it is entirely possible that actual infinities can, and do, exist. The question is: how would we know if they do exist or not?

My assertion is that they not only do exist, but that they quite literally must exist. Actual infinities must exist because we do exist here, in our "finite (but unbounded)" space/time continuum. The reason this is true is because the only rational alternative is that at some point, existence sprang out of nothingness, and as you demonstrate in your own argument 1, that leads to an irrational conclusion.

The "steady state, then change" option (which you call 2b) is really just a re-hash of 1. If something exists in a steady state with no change whatsoever for a presumably-long timeless period, then it requires a "sprang out of nothingness" event for change to begin. We both reject "sprang out of nothingness" events, so we have no alternative left but 2a.

Accordingly, it must be the case that our intuition about the non-existence of actual infinities is wrong. And it makes sense that this is the case because our intuition evolved within a "finite (but unbounded)" space/time continuum which would thus seem to be part of a larger, but infinite, universe ("the totality of existence").

And in fact, both the naturalistic and the supernaturalistic views of reality must necessarily presume the ultimate existence "of a larger, but infinite, universe ('the totality of existence')." The only distinction between the naturalistic view and the theistic view is that the theistic view adds additional magical (or incomprehensible) qualities to that "larger, but infinite, universe ('the totality of existence)" so as to justify the sectarian dominance of those humans who adhere to their particular theistic viewpoint.

But frankly, at the end of the day, I don't believe it can logically be challenged that "a larger, but infinite, universe ('the totality of existence')" does actually exist. It is a forced conclusion for us all.

== Bill

P.S. You might also find interesting this essay of mine: At the Intersection of "Metaphysical Naturalism" and "Intelligent Design", which has received some good reviews.

Shadowy Man

Bill:

How do you know that the space-time continuum in which we live is finite (yet unbounded)?