Hawking Is Playing with the Wrong Laws

Stephen Hawking's latest claim that God did not create the universe reminded me that sometimes very smart people say dumb things.  He's done so because he's playing outside the bounds of his field of expertise, trying to apply the rules of his field of study to an entirely different kind of playing field.

Hawkings' attempt to avoid the powerful conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't work because he keeps trying to employ the laws of the physical universe prior to when they existed.  He claims that the inevitable law of physics brought everything into being.  But, er, the law of physics didn't exist prior to the beginning of the universe so how could a non-existent law bring about anything?  And calling it "inevitable" doesn't make it any more convincing.

He writes, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."  But the law of gravity didn't exist so it couldn't cause anything.  Gravity and all of the laws of physics came into being along with the physical universe.  They're part of the physical universe.  They're not inevitable and they can't cause themselves.

Nothing of the physical world existed prior to the universe.  Wrap your head around that - nothing!  Nothing at all - no laws of physics, no matter - to work with, to get things started, to bring anything else into existence.  And if the very speculative theories that there were universes prior to this is true, the problem of how the first one of those universes got started just gets pushed back. 

To quote Maria von Trapp from "The Sound of Music", "Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever will." There was no law of physics, no law of gravity, nothing inevitable to get the physical world going on its own.  And the rules of Hawking's own game state very clearly that every physical effect needs an adequate cause.  Some causes are physical, some are personal.  And there was nothing physical prior to the physical universe to be its adquate cause.

The realm of study for science and physics is the physical universe.  The boundaries of their arena is the beginning and the end of the physical world.  Prior to the beginning of the physical world is out of bounds for their field of play.  Their rules, their laws don't apply there.  Hawking cannot dismiss the cosmological argument by trying to apply the laws of his field when it's out of bounds.  It's a whole new game with new rules.

Nothing at all, nothing physical existed.  So how does something come from nothing when there is no raw material, no laws of physics, no nothing to get started?  Only a personal being answering the description of God is an adequate cause to bring something from nothing, to get things going when there was nothing at all.  Hawkings is just flat wrong and he's out of his game making such claims.

Comments

[Ryan]

So True Melinda!

I had this conversation with a co-worker today after he had brought the Hawking article for me to read and somewhat gloat. I was struck by the irrational, and ferocious dedication to to suppress truth when one does not like it.

Hawking is do dedicated to naturalism that he is willing to be illogical, by appealing to things that did not exist (law of gravity) to explain how things began to exist. This is stunning.

I am also stupefied that no one in journalism can put these pieces together and ask Hawking about this gaping holes in elementary logic.

[eric]

Melinda,

"Nothing of the physical world existed prior to the universe."

What do you mean by "universe"? Do you mean it as "all that is" or do you mean it as "that which began at the big bang"? If you mean "all that is", then of course you are correct. There was nothing before there was something, if there is such a thing as before there was something. If you mean "that which began at the big bang", then, as far as I know, we don't know what existed prior to it.

When it comes to informed speculation on that, you will understand if I assign more weight to the views of Hawking than I do to your views. Although, you do also marshal the great cosmology duo of Rodgers and Hammerstein in support of your view, so maybe it's a draw.

The book isn't out yet, and I haven't seen detailed excerpt, but I have seen the same quote repeated in several places.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." --Hawking

This is not the same as saying "God did not create the universe". Do you have a different quote in which Hawking makes this positive claim?

[Victory Bell]

This is a strange error on Hawkings part and it almost seems like he's talking past his dissenters.

The fundamental question would be, how does philosophical 'nothing', spawn 'something'. This doesn't even seem to me to be a scientific question. I sincerely believe Hawking just doesn't understand the challenge.

[Johnnie]

I have offered this version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument before, but since the issue has come up again, I repeat it:

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

2. Northness has a beginning.

3. Therefore northness has a cause.

4. That cause is Santa Claus.

5. Therefore, there is a Santa Claus.

[KWM]

>>"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

I really don’t mean to be uncharitable, but this is about as dumb as it gets.

[KWM]

Johnnie,

You can’t get from 3 to 4…not in this universe anyway.

[Victory Bell]

Johnnie,
Serious question, I mean no disrespect. But are you seriously trying to construct an argument with that syllogism? Because it really doesn't make any sense.

As KWM said, your jump from 3 to 4 . . . just doesn't make sense. Logically, why would the cause of 'northness' need to be santa clause? In the KCA, it makes sense to posit God as a logically neccessairy cause of the universe. I see you may have been trying to mimic that in your syllogism to illustrate a point, but it feels rather arbitrary and confusing. :/

[Ryan]

Johnnie that is silly and flawed.

Nothing does not have a beginning, otherwise it would be something. In order to begin it has to be something.

Nothing is nothing is nothing. It cannot begin, because there is NOTHING to begin.

[travis]

From the reviews of the book on amazon, it seems like the news article is exaggerating the claims in the book.

[Renewed]

You accuse Hawking of denying the fundamental claim 'ex nihilo nihil fit' when doing theology but observing it when doing cosmology. You provide one little reference to support this. But if anyone here has actually read a single book from Hawking you know that your snippet does not represent his position accurately.

People don't like it when the Scriptures are quoted out of context, why should we think it is ok to do it with someone's cosmology?--Esp when they have spent their life learning about the matter and have MUCH to offer.

Simply put, you have here grossly misrepresented Hawking's understanding of the beginning of the universe. He does not maintain 'from nothing came everything'. If you read Hawking rather than cartoon him you will find he ascribes to big bang cosmology, which asserts expansion from a singularity--not anything so silly as you are suggesting.

If you wish to deny the big bang, well that's another matter. That will leave you on even more dubious ground given the overwhelming evidence that points to it.

But before engaging in your own cosmology and 'stepping out of your sphere and playing with the wrong laws' I suggest you make a more honest effort at getting Hawking's view correct.

Only after this can we talk about some of the more important metaphysical questions such as whether the universe is eternal or had a cause.

Just please remember, some of us have actually read Hawking.

One more thing, and PLEASE be honest, Melinda, how many of Stephen Hawking's books have you read and which ones were they?

[Malebranche]

Renewed,

I don't know what Hawking has or has not said. But I do think it's funny that Stand to Reason is so quick to call him on commenting outside his expertise. After all, Greg routinely evaluates the evidence for common descent, apparently thinking himself competent to assess the weight of the evidence and render a negative verdict in the fact of the majority consensus of biologists.

That doesn't mean STR is wrong about Hawking, of course. But I, at least, find it funny.

[Malebranche]

Oops. Meant to write, "face" not "fact."

[Renewed]

Ok, enough with Melinda's abysmal cosmology and gross misrepresentation of Hawking. Now let's look at her bad philosophy.

She states:

"Only a personal being answering the description of God is an adequate cause to bring something from nothing, to get things going when there was nothing at all."

Are you serious? You have just argued that we must attributing to causes precisely what is required from them given the observed effects. In this you are right, but you are not observing your own principles. When considering what is warranted when reasoning about the universe's effects back to its cause all that one can say is that the cause needed to be sufficiently powerful to bring the universe about.

There are many such causes other than 'a personal being answering the description of God' that could account for that. (Last I knew the Christian God was described as morally perfect. I see nothing in the world around me that necessitates that I conclude its cause was a morally perfect being).

Further, what in your premises warrants the claim that there is only one such being? From our epistemological vantage point it could have been multiple intelligences with sufficient power engaging in a combined effort that brought about the universe. (I am not suggesting this is IN FACT the case, but rather I am pointing out that your conclusion is in no way established by your premises.)

Greg has been caught on numerous occasions making this same blunder in reiterating the cosmological argument. I am surprised to see you repeating it here.

[Victory Bell]

It seems there is a whole lot of miscommunication going on here, perhaps even starting with the blog topic itself ;)

If hawking has been misrepresented here, well then shame on us.

[Renewed]

Hi Victory,

That is charitable of you but please understand my concerns weren't directed at you. After all, you didn't presume to provide an article with a critique of Hawking.

My concerns are when people attempt to perform marksmanship with a shotgun when their target requires the precision of a high powered rifle with a scope. The blunders in this article make it about as efficacious as buck shot launched at a 2,000 yard target.

[Victory Bell]

(this post may show up twice in two similar forms, and i apologize as it does)

As an absolute lover of shotguns, I really admire your analogy. I appreciate your comment and in any case I was apologizing for my hastiness in assuming that Hawking had indeed made such an obvious error (though I have seen this sort of thing happen amongst "academics"). If indeed the blog poster has mischaracterized Hawkings position ide be willing to bet she would appreciate nothing more than gracious correction in the matter if one is needed! :]

[Johnnie]

K, V, and R:

I was wondering whether you might get stuck at 1, not going from 3 to 4.

Why should something that has a beginning have a cause? In the case of northness (Ryan might have thought I said "nothing" instead of "northness"), the North Pole is the "beginning" of northness because it is a singularity. But is a singularity the same as a cause?

Santa Claus is a play on a personal being who happens to be associated with the North Pole and is also a play on "Santa Cause".

[Victory Bell]

Johnnie,

I also think your syllogism is a bit difficult to follow because you also invoke an abstract concept in place of an actual thing (the universe at its beginnig). I do not believe the KCA is ment to address abstract things like numbers or preopsitions (sp). "North", isn't actually a thing, in the same way "rightness" directionally speaking isn't actually a thing.

If im not mistaken this distinction is made in qualifying the first point of the KCA.

[Johnnie]

The author of the KCA article cited uses three mathematical arguments about a physical thing. So why can't I use mathematical arguments about a physical thing? Northerliness is a physical thing. East is the direction I am facing at sunrise (direction of rotation) "orient" meaning east means "rising" as "occident" means "setting". Northern and southern hemispheres are empirically distinguishable by making measurements of Coriolis force.

The article about Hawkings doesn't say anything about the KCA or an attempt to avoid it.

The Big Bang is a singularity. Singularities are, well, singular. Rules for them might be a little different than the rules we see in our humdrum everyday world.

The point Hawkings may want to make is that the curvature of space (suggesting gravity) existed before massive particles did.

[veritas]

Johnny,

It seems your example doesn't really advance of this discussion much at all .

North is a notion tied to the physical configuration of our earth and is used to describe relative location. In the absence of 3 dimensional space, it loses meaning.

Can i propose that instead of dealing with a nonsensical argument intended as an analog to the cosmological argument, we simply deal with the cosmological argument head on?

[Boz]

melinda said: "Nothing of the physical world existed prior to the universe. Wrap your head around that - nothing! Nothing at all - no laws of physics, no matter - to work with, to get things started, to bring anything else into existence."

how do you know that?

[Malebranche]

Renewed,

On April 17, 2008, Stand to Reason broadcasted an argument for the existence of God. The topic of the show was whether the existence of God can be proven, and Stand to Reason offered the following argument to settle this question in the affirmative:

1. Every event requires an adequate cause and no event causes itself.
2. The beginning of the universe is an event.
3. Therefore, the beginning of the universe has an adequate cause.
4. By God we mean an adequate cause of the universe.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Undoubtedly the apologist is now beginning his victory dance, congratulating herself on giving rational grounds for faith in God. But there really isn’t much reason to start patting ourselves on the backs for “defending the faith.” Here’s why.

First, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. All that follows is that there WAS a cause of the universe, not that the cause NOW exists.

Second, the conclusion as it stands is an abysmal failure at showing that theism is true. Demonstrating that the event of the universe coming into existence had a cause is a far stretch from demonstrating the truth of theism. This argument does not show that the cause still exists, or that the cause is personal, or that there is only one cause of the universe, or that the cause is good, or that the cause was not itself caused. So clearly the victory dance for having proved theism is premature.

This brings me to the fourth premise. I cannot stop someone from stipulating meanings for the words they use. I suppose people can use words as they please. But this stipulation is extremely puzzling. After all, this stipulated meaning of “God” is fully consistent with him having been created. But surely that isn’t what the theist wants to say. The theist wants to say that God is an absolutely perfect person who is omnipotent and omniscient and who is the Uncaused Cause of everything distinct from himself. But of course this argument fails to prove any such thing. It doesn’t even show that God is an Uncaused Cause! And if this is the stipulated meaning of “God,” then someone that posited an impersonal transcendent mechanistic cause would count as a believer in God!

It is regretful that such bad arguments are disseminated with great confidence and religious zeal. I think it just gives intelligent non-Christians further reason to be convinced that the apologists’ efforts are at best good-hearted but intellectually subpar. And these bad arguments surely give many Christians a false sense of confidence of the “rational grounds” of their own faith.

[Kevin True]

Hawking is hawking a new book with this cheap publicity stunt. God didn't name him hawking for nuttin.

[Sarah Schoonmaker]

What evidence points to 'nothingness' before the beginning of the universe?

[Johnnie]

veritas:

My example of northness has advanced the discussion. It is a manifestation of motion, not only position. It is a physical concept. You have not been able to meet the simple argument of northness. So are we ready to go on to the more difficult problem?

Also, I have addressed the cosmological problem head on. The last two paragraphs of my post addressed the cosmological problem.

[Nathaniel]

Johnie and Malebranche,

I don't think you're doing the Kalam justice. Now, I don't normally use the Kalam in my argumentation, but I think argument is effective.

First, the Kalam shows the necessity of an uncaused 1st cause (steps 1-3).

Steps 4 and 5 ( which are really a part of step 3), however, are achieved through more precise logic than what you described:

Since something cannot come from nothing, the cause must be an eternal something. Is the cause physical or non-physical? Since physical things did not exist before the Big Bang, then it must be non-physical. Is it personal or non personal? Well, observing the laws of the universe or the fine-tuning of the universe or the complexity of life, it seems more logical to assert that a personal designer created the universe than to say that a non-physical force caused the universe to exist.

Therefore, the cause of the universe must be an eternal, nonphysical, personal being. We will call that being God. Compared with other theories of the origin of the universe (such as M Theory), this makes more sense of the physical laws of the universe, philosophy, ethics, etc. So from a consistency point of view, the Kalam makes a lot of sense.

I believe that to be a better description of the Kalam than what you offered. You can buy or not, but I think it is a valid argument.

[Malebranche]

Nathaniel,

There are at least two ways a theist might proceed when arguing that the following is true:

Theism: There exists exactly one omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect personal being who exists necessary and is causally/explanatorily responsible for the physical universe.

The theist may accumulate known facts and argue that these facts ENTAIL theism. Alternatively, the theist may accumulate known facts and argue that these facts, while not entailing theism, render theism MORE PROBABLE THAN NOT.

Suppose we cite the beginning of the universe and the fact that the universe contains laws that appear fine-tuned for life. These facts do not entail theism, since these facts are consistent with the following hypothesis which is inconsistent with theism:

Non-Personal Necessary Being Hypothesis (NPNB)All physical reality was produced ultimately by the causal activity of at least one (but perhaps many) non-personal necessary beings which generated a large number of universes which differ with respect to their laws.

NPNB is not consistent with Thesim. Moreover, though NPNB may be false, it is consistent with the fact that the universe began to exist and is life-permitting. These facts, therefore, fail to entail theism.

If Greg thinks that these facts do entail theism, then he is simply mistaken.

I wonder why Greg believes that the origin of the universe and the fact that it is life permitting redners Theism more probable than NPNB. Given NPNB, it is not at all surprising that universes begin to exist and that at least one universe is life-permitting. The more universes that are generated with different laws, the higher the likelihood becomes that at least one of them will contain laws that are life-permitting.

Greg’s argument, as presented on his radio show and elsewhere on Stand to Reason, is radically incomplete. So I repeat that his theistic victory dance is premature given the evidence he typically cites.

[Todd]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

This is from the article I read on Yahoo. (A while ago).

So does he have eternal laws, and these laws will cause the universe to pop into existence?

Whatever.

[Johnnie]

Nathaniel:

My objection with the Kalam, if I didn't emphasize it enough before, is with its Premise 1, not Premise 4.

How do we know that an event has to have a cause?

Clocks slow down in gravitational fields. Gravitational fields are linked with curvature of space. Suppose we were to run our universe backward. The universe would get smaller and smaller. Space would become more curved. Massive particles would get swallowed back up into energy. The clock, running backward, would get slower, and slower..... and slow . . er ...... But... would ...it ever ...... actuallllllly .......

[Nathaniel]

Malebranche and Johnnie,

I see what you're saying. Again, that's one of the reasons I don't use the Kalam alone. Yet, I will say that the argument seems to be consistent with what we know about the universe. And there is a version of the Cosmological Argument that is based on the eternality of the universe. I think Aquinas argued that one.

Malebranche is right in saying that the argument only shows what is probable.

You're both right in saying the Kalam is not enough. The Kalam is what makes Theism more probable. And if I based my Christian belief on the Kalam alone I would be grasping at straws.

The Kalam I think provides a good argument for the existence for a personal, eternal being, but the argument does not result in QED. So I agree that the argument is incomplete.

I've been listening to Greg for several years, and I would think that he would agree that the argument in and of itself is not complete.

[Malebranche]

Nathaniel,

If you are looking for numerous instances where Greg makes a point to let his audience know just how little the known facts about the universe entail with respect to theism, then I think you will search in vain. More often than not Greg seems to trot out the cosmological argument Melinda presented above as though it's a slam-dunk case in favor of theism. I've heard Greg quite a bit myself, and I've never known him to be quick to point out the incompleteness of this argument. Nor have I seen him actually adopt the burden of completing it with careful probabilistic reasoning.

Furthermore, I've never heard Greg even hint at his awareness of alternative hypotheses for explaining the origin of a life-permitting universe, such as the one I constructed above. He seems to think that the only rival hypothesis is that the universe sprang into being out of nothing. One could hardly be blamed for getting the impression that Greg feels no need to explicitly formulate and address serious rival hypotheses. One would have thought that for someone who spends so much of his time going on and on about how rationally compelling theism is, he would have bothered to actually complete the cosmological argument he so often celebrates.

[Mike Westfall]

But premise #1 is a basic premise of science. Throw that out, and you have abandoned the basis of scientific inquiry.

[Francis Beckwith]

I have great respect for Stephen Hawking as a scientist. He is a brilliant from which I have learned much. But he does not seem to be a good philosopher. For his claims--though using the language of science--are ultimately philosophical, in the sense that they have to do with subtle distinctions that provide clarity to the questions he is attempting to answer.

Take, for example, this claim: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Gravity is a thing, and apparently one of the things in the universe. But if it were the only thing in the universe, it would be the universe. So, essentially what Hawking is saying is this: "Because there is a universe, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Of course, the universe plus nothing gets you the universe, just as peanut butter plus nothing gets you peanut butter. So, essentially, Hawking is saying this: "Because there is something, something can and will create itself from nothing." Oddly, he is, therefore, claiming that something combined with nothing can create something.

This, of course, is something that even people of common wit, unadorned with graduate degrees or NPR podcasts, know without any special tutoring whatsoever. Did we actually need Isaac Newton's successor to tell us what Bernie, the cashier at the delicatessen, knows immediately when a customer tries to shortchange him?

[Francis Beckwith]

By the Fr. Robert Barron has a nice post on Stephen Hawking, which I reproduce here:

So another prominent British academic has weighed in on the God question. Stephen Hawking, probably the best-known scientist in the world, has said, in a book to be published a week before the Pope’s visit to Britain, that the universe required no Creator. (I’m sure, of course, that there was no “intelligent design” behind that choice of publication date!). I confess that something in me tightens whenever I hear a scientist pontificating on issues that belong to the arena of philosophy or metaphysics. I will gladly listen to Stephen Hawking when he holds forth on matters of theoretical physics, but he’s as qualified to talk about philosophical and religious issues as any college freshman. There is a qualitative difference between the sciences, which speak of objects, forces, and phenomena within the observable universe, and philosophy or religion which speak of ultimate origins and final purposes. Science, as such, simply cannot adjudicate questions that lie outside of its proper purview—and this is precisely why scientists tend to make lots of silly statements when they attempt to philosophize.

Here’s an example from Hawking’s latest book: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Well, first of all, which is it: nothing or the law of gravity? There’s quite a substantial difference between the two. If Hawking is saying that the universe, which is marked in every nook and cranny by stunning and mathematically describable intellegibility, simply came forth from Nothing, then I just throw up my hands. The classical philosophical tradition gives us an adage that is still hard to improve upon: ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing comes nothing). Any teacher worth his salt would take a student to task if, in trying to explain why and how a given phenomenon occurred, the student were to say, “well, it just spontaneously happened.” Yet we are expected to be satisfied with precisely that explanation when it comes to the most pressing and fascinating question of all: why is there something rather than nothing? In my dialogues with atheists, I often come up against this total non-explanation, and I can only smile ruefully. Apparently, the affirmation of God involves far too great a leap of faith, yet the assertion that the universe just popped into being is rationally compelling!

So suppose we say (to return to Hawking’s rather incoherent statement) that gravity is the ultimate cause of the universe. This would mean that a force within nature is the source of the being of the world. To be sure, this sort of claim has a long pedigree, stretching back at least to the pre-Socratics, but it remains highly problematic. The question “why is there something rather than nothing?” is not searching after a thing within the universe, but rather the being of the universe. It is wondering why (to use the technical term) contingent things exist, that is to say, things that do not contain within themselves the reason for their own being. You and I are contingent in the measure that we had parents, that we eat and drink, and that we breathe. In a word, we don’t explain ourselves. Now if we want to understand why we exist, we cannot go on endlessly appealing to other contingent things. We must come finally to some reality which exists through the power of its own essence, some power whose very nature it is to be. But that whose very nature it is to be cannot, in any sense, be limited or imperfect in being, and this is precisely why Catholic philosophy has identified this non-contingent ground of contingency, this ultimate explanation of the being of the universe, as “God.” To claim that something as finite and variable as the force of gravity is this ultimate explaining value is simply ludicrous. However all-embracing or powerful it is, gravity is still a worldly nature, something within the contingent cosmos
.
There is a line from one of the articles describing Hawking’s book that I found, actually, quite helpful and illuminating. The author said, “in his new book, The Grand Design…Hawking sets out a comprehensive thesis that the scientific framework leaves no room for a deity.” Quite right. Since the true God is not a being alongside other beings, not one thing in the universe among many, he is not circumscribable within a scientific frame of understanding. He should not, therefore, even in principle, be either affirmed or denied from a purely scientific perspective. There is, of course, rampant today a “scientism” which would reduce all legitimate knowing to the scientific mode of knowing. You can find this form of dogmatism in the writings of all of the prominent “new” atheists: Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, etc. I must confess that I’m disappointed that Stephen Hawking appears to have joined their company.

For a link to this on Fr. Barron's site, just click my name.

[Malebranche]

I just found the clip where Greg takes himself to have given a very straightforward proof for the existence of God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtlrbx_LBQg

He reasons that the universe must have a cause (not noticing that he can only legitimately infer that the universe has AT LEAST one cause, possibly more) and then, by an act of stipulation, calls this cause 'God' and folds his arms in triumphant victory. Apparently once we know the universe has a cause, it is enough to simply call it 'God,' as opposed to actually arguing that it has the properties of divinity.

By the way, you'll notice in this clip that Greg does not think that his case for theism is probabilistic. He thinks theism is entailed by the fact that the universe began to exist. So as I said, he betrays no awareness of rival hypotheses such as the Non-Personal Necessary Being Hypothesis I proposed above.

[ChrisB]

Eric said: "If [by "the universe"] you mean "that which began at the big bang", then, as far as I know, we don't know what existed prior to it.

Actually, Hawking is responsible for proving that space and time began at the big bang. There was nothing prior to it.

[William Wilcox]

Malebranche,

This is off topic so I will be brief. You seem to me to be bothered as much by Greg as his ideas. I get the impression that you consider him narrow minded, perhaps hubristic. If that is not your intention you could adjust your style and/or correct my impression.

[Malebranche]

William Wilcox,

I'll simply let my criticisms of his "proof" for God's existence stand, and let Greg's readers decide whether he is here guilty of overconfidence with respect to this argument or not. If his argument is really as powerful as he thinks it is, then I would suggest that he send the memo to philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Peter van Inwagen, etc, who, despite being Christians and spending their lives developing some of the most intelligent Christian philosophy around today, are under the impression that such simplistic proofs for theism are plainly inadequate. Swinburne thinks there are very good arguments for theism (Plantinga and van Inwagen are far more skeptical), but his arguments are probabilistic, not deductive, and much more nuanced and complicated than that cosmological argument Greg is apparently so impressed with.

[Brad B]

"(Plantinga and van Inwagen are far more skeptical)"

Hmmm, here from an article quoting Alvin:

"Plantinga notes that we find
ourselves in possession of “a powerful argument against naturalism”; indeed, in light
of the “plausible alternatives,” it amounts to “a powerful argument for theism.”

The quotes are found in and footnoted in this article: http://www.proginosko.com/docs/IfKnowledgeThenGod.pdf

[Alex]

Malebranche,

Considering the Non-Personal Necessary Being Hypothesis you proposed above I have one question: How could a non personal force or collection of non personal forces cause the universe to begin to exist?

Correct me if I am wrong, but if these forces are not personal they cannot decide when to act and when not to act, just like gravity cannot decide when to act on an object. This would imply that the universe existed as long as these forces existed. But since scientific evidence seems to suggest that the universe had a beginning via the big bang, these forces must also have had a beginning thus bringing us to the question: What cause these forces to come into being?

I think that it appears more reasonable to suggest that since the universe had a beginning something must have decided to cause it to come into existence. This would imply a personal cause as being able to decide is a property of persons.

If I have misunderstood your position feel free to correct me and/or further explain your Non-Personal Necessary Being Hypothesis.

Thanks,

Alex

[Malebranche]

Alex,

If the non-personal necessary being(s) exists outside of time and causally produced spacetime, then there was no time at which it was false that it caused the universe to exist followed by a time at which it is true that it caused the universe to exist. The image of a non-personal necessary being waiting with causal powers dormant for ages and ages only then to exercise its creative power is misleading, since it presupposes the being is temporal. But why suppose that?

I think you are being mislead by the notion of the universe beginning to exist. The idea is not that there was a time at which the universe did not exist, followed by a time at which it existed. Rather, the idea is that spacetime and the universe itself began to exist a finite time ago due to the causal activity of a non-personal necessary being capable of no decisions or foresight.

[Todd]

"The idea is not that there was a time at which the universe did not exist, followed by a time at which it existed. Rather, the idea is that spacetime and the universe itself began to exist a finite time ago"

If something began to exist, then there was a "time" or whatever you want to call it, when it didn't exist.

[Malebranche]

Todd,

If what you say is true, then it follows that it is impossible for time to begin to exist. The proof is as follows:

(1) Suppose that if some being X begins to exist at time t, then there was a time t-1 at which X did not exist & that time began to exist.
(2) Therefore, there was a moment of time t-1 at which time did not exist (from 1).
(3) There is no moment of time t-1 at which time did not exist (Premise; contradiction)
(4) Therefore, it is false that [if some being X begins to exist at time t, then there was a time t-1 at which X did not exist & that time began to exist] (from 1 through 3).
(5) Therefore, if it is true that if some being X begins to exist at time t, then there was a time t-1 at which X did not exist, then it is false that time began to exist (from 4).

But our best science and very good Leibnizian arguments (see http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5159) tell us that time did begin to exist. So, I think what you claimed is false.

[Alex]

Malebranche,

Thank you for your reply.

From now on, without loss of generality, I will just assume that we are talking about multiple non-personal beings.

I think what Todd is attempting to say and what I would similarly ask you in response is:

Doesn't the idea that space and time began to exist at a finite point suggest that the beings outside of historical time must have entered a temporal state(unlikely) or were always in a temporal state (more likely) considering they caused something to occur?

(By temporal state I do not mean historical time which began allegedly at the 'big bang' but some metaphysical time outside of space-time)

I place emphasis on the "ed" as this tense denotes that the beings now caused a event which occurred in the past and hence they would have a series of events which follow one from another. In other words they would exist in a temporal state as they have a past.

If the beings were static they would not be able to cause anything to exist.
This is why it seems reasonable to suggest that these beings must be non temporal and hence the problem with the universe existing as long as the forces existed still stands.

I do admit that I have only slightly touched on the topic of time, study wise, so I could possibly be mistaken in some of these concepts.

What are your thoughts on this?

Alex

[Malebranche]

The complexity of this conversation is growing exponentially. That is yet another reason to believe that Greg’s argument is far too simple to count as any sort of proof as it stands. In full disclosure I freely admit that the metaphysics of time is not my forte.

Perhaps this will miss the mark, but here’s a shot. You are giving an argument that William Lane Craig has given for the conclusion that the necessary being responsible for the universe must be a personal agent. I would like to emphasize the fact that William Lane Craig feels the need to actually give that argument. I emphasize this because, as Craig knows, Greg’s argument is radically incomplete and so it is premature of him to fold his arms in victory, congratulating himself on having proven the existence of God.

But now onto something more substantive. Craig is an A-theorist about time. Craig believes that the properties of “being past,” “being present,” and “being future” are objective properties of the world that mark real differences in reality. Suppose, however, that we drop that A-theory of time and endorse the B-theory of time, according to which all times and their contents are ontologically on a par (the moments prior to 2009 are just as real as the moments at or after 2009), ordered only by the relations of ‘earlier than,’ simultaneous with,’ and ‘later than.’ Given that metaphysics of time, I see no reason why we could not posit a non-personal necessary being who exists but does not exist at any moment in the B-series and causally produces all moments in the B-series. On this model, the entirety of the B-series itself is timelessly causally produced by a timeless non-personal necessary being. That does not, however, entail that the B-series does not have a front edge. As Craig himself notes:

Theologically, there seems to be a decisive reason for Christian theists' rejecting the B-theory, namely, that it cannot give an adequate analysis of the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. On the B-theory creatio ex nihilo is reduced to the ontological dependence of the creation upon God and the space-time continuum's having a front edge. But the creation as a whole is co-eternal with God in the sense that it exists as tenselessly as He. There is no state of affairs in the actual world which consists of God existing alone without creation.

Notice that Craig objects to this on theological grounds which presuppose theism. But we are entertaining non-theistic hypotheses at the moment, so those objections won’t be relevant to our discussion. Furthermore, notice that Craig admits that on this model there is a sense in which the universe is co-eternal with the necessary being that causes it. In that case, however, I see no reason why the cause of the universe must be a person, since all that is required is that the cause exist timelessly and that its effect (the entire B-series) depend on its causal power timelessly.

[Malebranche]

This discussion by Craig is also very helpful, and highlights the fact that if Greg wishes to adequately defend his cosmological argument, then he needs to entangle himself in highly controversial disputes about the nature of time:

By contrast, on a tenseless or B-Theory of time there really are no tensed facts. The factual content of sentences containing tensed verbs and temporal indexicals includes only the tenseless locations (dates, clock times) and tenseless relations (earlier than, simultaneous with, and later than) of events. Linguistic tense is an ego-centric feature of language users. It serves only to express the subjective perspective of the user. But in objective reality there is no “now” in the world. Everything just exists tenselessly. So according to the B-Theory of time, all things and events in time are equally existent. If there were no minds, there would be no past, present, or future. There would be just the four-dimensional space-time universe existing en bloc. It therefore follows that there is no temporal becoming. Temporal becoming is an illusion of human consciousness. Nothing in the space-time block ever comes into or goes out of being, nor does the space-time block as a whole come into being or pass away. On a theistic view it co-exists timelessly with God.

The kalam cosmological argument presupposes from start to finish an A-theory of time. Things do not come into being without a cause. If the universe is finite in the past, then it began to exist in the sense that it came into being. The first moment of creation is not a tenseless instant at the head of a four-dimensional block but an evanescent moment that came to be and has passed away. On a B-Theory of time God is the Creator of the universe in the sense that the whole block universe and everything in it depends upon God for its existence. The B-Theorist’s affirmation that God brought the universe into being out of nothing at some moment in the finite past can at best mean that God tenselessly sustains the universe in being and that there is (tenselessly) a moment which is separated from any other moment of time by a finite interval of time and before which no moment of comparable duration exists. The universe began to exist only in the sense that the tenselessly existing block universe has a front edge. It has a beginning only in the sense that a yardstick has a beginning. There is in the actual world no state of affairs of God existing alone without the space-time universe. God never really brings the universe into being; as a whole it co-exists timelessly with Him.

[Malebranche]

For an example of Alvin Plantinga (one of the most intelligent and accomplished philosophers alive today) expressing skepticism about the force of theistic proofs, see the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL5rykiekBs

For an example from Peter van Inwagen, see the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxCDHJCAiBQ&feature=related

[James Uberly, 4th St., DC]

"Nothing at all, nothing physical existed. So how does something come from nothing when there is no raw material, no laws of physics, no nothing to get started? Only a personal being answering the description of God is an adequate cause to bring something from nothing, to get things going when there was nothing at all. Hawkings is just flat wrong and he's out of his game making such claims."

The personal being was there; not nothing.

[Todd]

Time in our universe began to exist. This doesn't mean that there is no such thing as time outside of our universe.

I really don't care either way. It just seems strange to talk about something beginning without a before.

[RonH]

I doubt anybody really knows the nature of the Big Bang or the ultimate origins of everything.

Same goes for space, time, matter.

Some know more than others about various theories (models) of these things. But that seems different from knowing the things themselves. So far anyway.

RonH