Uncaused Cause Proof

[dells_of_bittersweet]

I would like to hear some feedback on a variant of the uncaused cause proof that I think may be irrefutable. I don't remember it exactly, but it goes something like this:

1. Everything must have a cause.
2. Each cause has in fact been caused by something before it.
3. Science tells us that if we trace all causes backwards we finally come to a cause which is the cause of all events after it.
4. This cause is called the "Big Bang"
5. The Big Bang must have a cause.
6. Since matter, time, and space came into existence at the instant of the Big Bang, the cause of the Big Bang must exist outside of time, space, and matter.
7. Since there can be no cause and effect without time, the cause of the Big Bang must be an uncaused cause.
8. This uncaused cause we call God.

While this proof does not prove the existence of God, it proves that there must be a being that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being.

[mortify]

Sounds pretty good to me! You know when the idea of the Big Bang was first hypothesized, it was resisted by many scientists of the time! It was held for a long time that the universe was eternal, and this was easier to fit in an atheist paradigm. But the idea of a beginning raises some philosophical questions that can be rather uncomfortable! As the syllogism says, there must be transcendent cause to our material universe. Certainly not a palatable view for a materialist!

Hey Btw...

Anyone know what astrophysicist first suggested the Big Bang?

Here's a hint:

[img]http://www.halleethehomemaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Lemaitre.jpg[/img]

Wait? Is that what I think it is! GASP! A Priestly collar!!!

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308972959' post='2258384']
Hey Btw...

Anyone know what astrophysicist first suggested the Big Bang?

Here's a hint:

[img]http://www.halleethehomemaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Lemaitre.jpg[/img]

Wait? Is that what I think it is! GASP! A Priestly collar!!!
[/quote]

*shrug*

Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, was a monk...

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1308972196' post='2258370']
I would like to hear some feedback on a variant of the uncaused cause proof that I think may be irrefutable. I don't remember it exactly, but it goes something like this:

1. Everything must have a cause.
2. Each cause has in fact been caused by something before it.
3. Science tells us that if we trace all causes backwards we finally come to a cause which is the cause of all events after it.
4. This cause is called the "Big Bang"
5. The Big Bang must have a cause.
6. Since matter, time, and space came into existence at the instant of the Big Bang, the cause of the Big Bang must exist outside of time, space, and matter.
7. Since there can be no cause and effect without time, the cause of the Big Bang must be an uncaused cause.
8. This uncaused cause we call God.

While this proof does not prove the existence of God, it proves that there must be a being that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being.
[/quote]

I don't see any problems with it, other than "there must be a [i]being[/i] that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being."

I would call the uncaused cause the uncaused cause, and not god.

[CephaDrigan]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308974379' post='2258403']
*shrug*

Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, was a monk...
[/quote]

I'm not exactly sure how that plays in

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308974508' post='2258406']
I don't see any problems with it, other than "there must be a [i]being[/i] that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being."

I would call the uncaused cause the uncaused cause, and not god.
[/quote]

What ever your uncaused cause is would need to exist outside of time because we know from the theory of relativity that you can't have time without matter.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='CephaDrigan' timestamp='1308974635' post='2258408']
I'm not exactly sure how that plays in
[/quote]

Mixing science and religion too much by saying that some scientists were religious. Whether the astrophysicist was a priest or Mendel was a monk is actually irrelavent to science. It is for them only, personally.

On the flip side it's like saying that evolution is bad because Darwin was an atheist.

This sort of mixing is one of my pet peeves.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1308974759' post='2258410']
What ever your uncaused cause is would need to exist outside of time because we know from the theory of relativity that you can't have time without matter.
[/quote]

Yes, but why would that uncaused cause need to be intelligent and consciously capable of designing a universe? To prove that there's an uncaused cause is one thing, but to prove that it's intelligent is another.

Stephen Hawking in his latest book "The Grand Design" talked about the universe coming into existence uncaused. I don't have the knowledge necessary to know criticise it but uncaused causes aren't so out there.

Edited June 25, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308975643' post='2258425']
Mixing science and religion too much by saying that some scientists were religious. Whether the astrophysicist was a priest or Mendel was a monk is actually irrelavent to science. It is for them only, personally.

On the flip side it's like saying that evolution is bad because Darwin was an atheist.

This sort of mixing is one of my pet peeves.



Yes, but why would that uncaused cause need to be intelligent and consciously capable of designing a universe? To prove that there's an uncaused cause is one thing, but to prove that it's intelligent is another.

Stephen Hawking in his latest book "The Grand Design" talked about the universe coming into existence uncaused. I don't have the knowledge necessary to know criticise it but uncaused causes aren't so out there.
[/quote]

Definitely agree about the mixing. It's bad science and bad religion. Also, it's non rational, not proving anything.

For the purposes of this argument, the uncaused cause doesn't need to be intelligent or consciously capable of designing a universe. It has to be capable of causing a universe. We know from the big bang bang and the theory of relativity that the uncaused cause must exist outside of time, matter, and space. Time, space, and matter all had to be created by the uncaused cause. Whatever that cause is, it has to be powerful enough to do it. Anything with the powers of this uncaused cause would have many of the powers of the God you don't believe can exist.

Also not qualified to comment on Hawking.

Edited June 25, 2011 by dells_of_bittersweet

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1308976321' post='2258439']
Definitely agree about the mixing. It's bad science and bad religion. Also, it's non rational, not proving anything.

For the purposes of this argument, the uncaused cause doesn't need to be intelligent or consciously capable of designing a universe. It has to be capable of causing a universe. We know from the big bang bang and the theory of relativity that the uncaused cause must exist outside of time, matter, and space. Time, space, and matter all had to be created by the uncaused cause.[/quote]

Up to here I agree.

[quote]Whatever that cause is, it has to be powerful enough to do it. Anything with the powers of this uncaused cause would have many of the powers of the God you don't believe can exist.

Also not qualified to comment on Hawking.
[/quote]

How would you describe the powers needed?

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308977323' post='2258449']
Up to here I agree.



How would you describe the powers needed?
[/quote]


The power to call forth something that does not exist into being. If you agree that there was a "time" (figuratively speaking-no time before matter) before matter, time and space existed, The Cause had to call that matter into being.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1308977499' post='2258450']
The power to call forth something that does not exist into being. If you agree that there was a "time" (figuratively speaking-no time before matter) before matter, time and space existed, The Cause had to call that matter into being.
[/quote]

Well it's a good argument, but how do you know that there was nothing before the big bang? As far as two other hypotheses go, there's the multiverse, which would say that we're the product of a favourable universe among many, Penrose's cyclic universe (in which the universe was not created nor will be destroyed, but go through successive big bangs) and the brane which also was always there.

None of these have good proof to back them up though, the multiverse and brane theory are waiting on string theory to deliver I think and Penrose's theory will be falsified if when we observe gravitational waves.

Though I just don't have faith that whatever caused the universe to "start", if you will, is conscious and intelligent, both of which most religions describe their god to be. Deist and theist.

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308975643' post='2258425']
Mixing science and religion too much by saying that some scientists were religious. Whether the astrophysicist was a priest or Mendel was a monk is actually irrelavent to science. It is for them only, personally. [/quote]

I mentioned it only as an interesting aside. People have this notion that religion and science are diametrically opposed, and yet Fr Laimetre an astrophysicist who hypothesized the Big Bang (with evidence, of course!) Secondly, many people tend to think science disproves religion, yet the Big Bang nicely supports the doctrine of an Ex Nihilo creation (i.e. the universe has a beginning, a belief that was contrary to classical Greek Philosophy.)

[quote]Yes, but why would that uncaused cause need to be intelligent and consciously capable of designing a universe? To prove that there's an uncaused cause is one thing, but to prove that it's intelligent is another. [/quote]

The question here is what is your understanding of God. If you view "god" as the venerable old man sitting on a throne in heaven, then yea, that's not the uncaused cause. And just as a note, Catholics never had this view of God. You can open up a book of of medieval theology and look under the category of God, and you wont see a description of the Artwork in the sistine chapel, instead you will see things like Infinite Existence, Absolute Simplicity, Actus Purus, etc. Although artistic representations are great, they are merely artistic representations, and they have sadly been misunderstood as theological treatises by some (e.g. when an atheist tells me my "god" is equivalen to a "sky fairy".) So now back to the point. What is an uncaused cause, that is beyond space, time, and matter? First, if its outside of space-matter-time, you have something transcendent. This alone shatters the materialist foundation! If something transcendent brought something into existence that was not originally there, there must be a reason for it's existence. This reason lies in consciousness. "Causing" is a conscious action. What you further have to understand, is that this cause is not merely past tense, i.e. it caused the big bang, and that it finished. No! This cause is ongoing. If the universe was created from nothing, what prevents it from going back to nothingness? The same cause that brought it into existence! And again, this is an eternal act of consciousness. The fact that our universe has laws, that are again upheld but this uncaused cause, further points to this reality. We can make sense of our universe! We can reasonably expect the sun to rise every day! It's because of the fact that future events can be predicted on past experience, that we even have a science! Put simply, if the uncaused cause were not conscious and intelligent, there would be no laws, and we wouldn't exist!

[quote]Stephen Hawking in his latest book "The Grand Design" talked about the universe coming into existence uncaused. I don't have the knowledge necessary to know criticise it but uncaused causes aren't so out there.
[/quote]

Pheh... it's the same old run down argument presented in modern terminology. There is a record of an Islamic Philosopher named Al Ghazzali arguing with an atheist in his time. Al Ghazzali was using his knowledge of anatomy and human physiology to point to a design in creation. The atheist argued that the animals, birds, plants, etc that we see around us, ALWAYS existed. In other words, there never was a beginning! This debate occurred in the 12th century, and atheist tactics haven't changed. Where there is evidence for a beginning, propose an infinite regression! Where there is a big bang, propose infinite big bangs! The universe expands, collapses, explodes, and expands again, in an infinite cycle!

Way to be original atheism!

Btw, for any of you art nerds. There is a famous painting, unfortunately I can't remember the artist, but it depicts all the famous thinkers of the world. In particular, you see the eternal debate, shown between Socrates and Plato walking through a door. Socrates is pointing down, and Plato is pointing up! In that painting, although it is a Western painting, there is a depiction of Al Ghazzali in the corner meditating on some thought!

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308980578' post='2258475']
I mentioned it only as an interesting aside. People have this notion that religion and science are diametrically opposed, and yet Fr Laimetre an astrophysicist who hypothesized the Big Bang (with evidence, of course!) Secondly, many people tend to think science disproves religion, yet the Big Bang nicely supports the doctrine of an Ex Nihilo creation (i.e. the universe has a beginning, a belief that was contrary to classical Greek Philosophy.)[/quote]

Those things are one baby step away from becoming a faulty association, and one that I've heard quite frequently. If it was merely trivia, then I have no qualms with it.


[quote]The question here is what is your understanding of God. If you view "god" as the venerable old man sitting on a throne in heaven, then yea, that's not the uncaused cause. And just as a note, Catholics never had this view of God. You can open up a book of of medieval theology and look under the category of God, and you wont see a description of the Artwork in the sistine chapel, instead you will see things like Infinite Existence, Absolute Simplicity, Actus Purus, etc. Although artistic representations are great, they are merely artistic representations, and they have sadly been misunderstood as theological treatises by some (e.g. when an atheist tells me my "god" is equivalen to a "sky fairy".) So now back to the point. What is an uncaused cause, that is beyond space, time, and matter? First, if its outside of space-matter-time, you have something transcendent. This alone shatters the materialist foundation! If something transcendent brought something into existence that was not originally there, there must be a reason for it's existence. This reason lies in consciousness. "Causing" is a conscious action. What you further have to understand, is that this cause is not merely past tense, i.e. it caused the big bang, and that it finished. No! This cause is ongoing. If the universe was created from nothing, what prevents it from going back to nothingness? The same cause that brought it into existence! And again, this is an eternal act of consciousness. The fact that our universe has laws, that are again upheld but this uncaused cause, further points to this reality. We can make sense of our universe! We can reasonably expect the sun to rise every day! It's because of the fact that future events can be predicted on past experience, that we even have a science! Put simply, if the uncaused cause were not conscious and intelligent, there would be no laws, and we wouldn't exist![/quote]

Actually, no that's not how I see the theistic conception of god (the anthropomorphic Zeus). That would be ridiculous. Though I do see it as an antropomorphism, but of the mind, not of the human form, especially within theism.

Causing is a conscious action? Would that also mean cause and effect even within our universe by non conscious agents (unless you subscribe to panpsychism)?


[quote]Pheh... it's the same old run down argument presented in modern terminology. There is a record of an Islamic Philosopher named Al Ghazzali arguing with an atheist in his time. Al Ghazzali was using his knowledge of anatomy and human physiology to point to a design in creation. The atheist argued that the animals, birds, plants, etc that we see around us, ALWAYS existed. In other words, there never was a beginning! This debate occurred in the 12th century, and atheist tactics haven't changed. Where there is evidence for a beginning, propose an infinite regression! Where there is a big bang, propose infinite big bangs! The universe expands, collapses, explodes, and expands again, in an infinite cycle!

Way to be original atheism![/quote]

If some form of physical evidence ever turns up to support the idea, it will be more than Al Ghazzali's philosophising. What does it have to do with atheism, if scientific evidence turns up which supports the idea, then it's scientific, not atheistic.

(though science is atheistic in the purest sense of the word, at least until god is detectable through it. It's not anti-theistic though.)

As far as I know there isn't really "nothing" in physics. If you're interested, there's a lecture by Lawrence Krauss called 'A Universe From Nothing' on Youtube where he explains how we could get something from "nothing", which isn't really nothing. .

Edited June 25, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308981974' post='2258487']
Actually, no that's not how I see the theistic conception of god (the anthropomorphic Zeus). That would be ridiculous. Though I do see it as an antropomorphism, but of the mind, not of the human form, especially within theism.[/quote]

Basically a reversal of Genesis 1:26. So why do you see it that way?

[quote]Causing is a conscious action? Would that also mean cause and effect even within our universe by non conscious agents (unless you subscribe to panpsychism)?[/quote]

To make something from nothing requires infinite power. Note, when I speak of "nothing," I mean absolute nothing. So if I ask you to picture "nothingness" in your mind, and blackness comes to mind, that's still some[i]thing[/i]. Take the next step, and then you will see what I mean. So for something, to come out of nothing, is essentially an infinite jump. We humans don't create in the true sense of the word, we simply mold what already exists. Creating something is an intelligible act. It has purpose, because for something to exist that need not exist, there must be a reason for it. Further, what exists is ordered, i.e. is governed by natural laws. What goes up must come down. Order reflects intelligibility, if that is even a word! And again, the cause of the universe is still causing it. Sustaining the universe is all intelligible. All things ultimately fall under the governance of this cause, and therefore even seemingly accidental or non conscious agents serve some purpose. It is what we call Divine Providence.

[quote]If some form of physical evidence ever turns up to support the idea, it will be more than Al Ghazzali's philosophising. What does it have to do with atheism, if scientific evidence turns up which supports the idea, then it's scientific, not atheistic. [/quote]

You yourself admitted in a previous post that there is no good evidence for these ideas. So ask yourself this, if there is no good evidence, why is it even speculated?


[quote](though science is atheistic in the purest sense of the word, at least until god is detectable through it. It's not anti-theistic though.)[/quote]

Science isn't atheistic. Science is a methological study of the world through hypothesis, test, and evidence collection. It has nothing to do with atheism. In fact, cience originated in Catholic Europe because we value reason, believe in an orderly universe, are not-pantheists, and recognize seeking knowledge as a good thing.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308985014' post='2258510']
Basically a reversal of Genesis 1:26. So why do you see it that way?[/quote]

Humans trying to explain god. I don't deny the possibility of the existence of a god or gods, but I seriously doubt that god is as people say he is. We're limited to our own experiences. One major reason why I don't accept truth claims from people on his supposed behalf.

An example: the quantum world. Quoting Feynman: if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. There is evidence for QM however, so that's where the analogy breaks down, and its predicitions can be tested with great accuracy.

To me, god looks like the reasoned (rational or not) conclusion, but still just an idea.


[quote]To make something from nothing requires infinite power. Note, when I speak of "nothing," I mean absolute nothing. So if I ask you to picture "nothingness" in your mind, and blackness comes to mind, that's still some[i]thing[/i]. Take the next step, and then you will see what I mean. So for something, to come out of nothing, is essentially an infinite jump. We humans don't create in the true sense of the word, we simply mold what already exists. Creating something is an intelligible act. It has purpose, because for something to exist that need not exist, there must be a reason for it. Further, what exists is ordered, i.e. is governed by natural laws. What goes up must come down. Order reflects intelligibility, if that is even a word! And again, the cause of the universe is still causing it. Sustaining the universe is all intelligible. All things ultimately fall under the governance of this cause, and therefore even seemingly accidental or non conscious agents serve some purpose. It is what we call Divine Providence.[/quote]

That's the point, how do you even know that pure nothingness even existed?

[quote]You yourself admitted in a previous post that there is no good evidence for these ideas. So ask yourself this, if there is no good evidence, why is it even speculated?[/quote]

Evidence? String theory and gravitational waves? That would be physical evidence, which is what I meant by the word.


[quote]Science isn't atheistic. Science is a methological study of the world through hypothesis, test, and evidence collection. It has nothing to do with atheism. In fact, cience originated in Catholic Europe because we value reason, believe in an orderly universe, are not-pantheists, and recognize seeking knowledge as a good thing.[/quote]

I used the word atheistic because god (as religions put it) would be outside the realm of science, not that science is anti theistic or even theistic. I didn't mean it in the sense that it promotes atheism or is analogous to atheism's theology (or atheology).

Maybe materialistic would've been a better word.

Edited June 25, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308978510' post='2258461']
Well it's a good argument, but how do you know that there was nothing before the big bang? As far as two other hypotheses go, there's the multiverse, which would say that we're the product of a favourable universe among many, Penrose's cyclic universe (in which the universe was not created nor will be destroyed, but go through successive big bangs) and the brane which also was always there.

None of these have good proof to back them up though, the multiverse and brane theory are waiting on string theory to deliver I think and Penrose's theory will be falsified if when we observe gravitational waves.

Though I just don't have faith that whatever caused the universe to "start", if you will, is conscious and intelligent, both of which most religions describe their god to be. Deist and theist.
[/quote]

I'm going to take a couple different angles on this:

1. I think you are creating a "Non-God" of the gaps. Instead of using gaps in science to prove the existence of God, you are using gaps in science to prove the lack of a God. The big bang needs a cause. Lacking a testable atheistic model for this, you create a non-God of the gaps.

2. You have a lot of faith, much more than would be needed to believe in Christianity. All of the atheistic explanations for the existence of a cause for the Big Bang require you to put faith in at least one hypothesis that is untestable, unobservable, and unverifiable. You've admitted that they have no "good proof to back them up." It's much more reasonable to put faith in the claims of Jesus, who proved his authenticity and reliability by rising from the dead.

3. You're just buying time. Even if you have a multiverse or a universe with successive big bangs, the first event in the history of the multiverse requires a cause.

4A. How do I know that there was nothing before the Big Bang? I don't. But as a rational being I believe whatever is most likely. If time, space, and matter came into existence at the Big Bang, they had to be caused by something existing outside the dimensions of time, space, and matter. A cause existing outside of time is eternal. A cause existing outside of matter is a spirit. A cause capable of bringing matter into existence ex nihilo has some pretty amesome powers at least approaching omnipotence. We're starting to see some of the attributes of what we consider to be God here.

4B. Taking a different tack on 4, something has to be eternal. Our options are either matter/energy (we know from Einstein that they are the same), or God. The problem with matter being eternal is that matter causes time. You end up with an infinite regress, which is irrational. (I'd be happy to argue just this point if you doubt that infinite regresses are irrational). With God, you avoid the infinite regress because there is no time until He creates matter. Thus an eternal God is completely rational.

5. Your Non-God of the gaps relies on some bad science. I'm feeling very tempted to do a text dump...see next posts. I'll be posting from Magisreasonfaith.org, a site run by a Jesuit Priest and physicist, Fr. Spitzer.

Edited June 25, 2011 by dells_of_bittersweet

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[b] The Grand Design, or The Murky Metaphysics of Stephen Hawking[/b]

Monday, June 13, 2011
By Kelly Ryan Harriger

Magis Contributor



“Philosophy is dead.”

So declares physicist Stephen Hawking in the early pages of his new bestseller, “The Grand Design.”

He continues: “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

It’s a grand statement to open “The Grand Design,” except that for many, it doesn’t ring true. In fact, one of the fastest growing areas in academics is the discipline of philosophy of science, and it seems that the vast majority of best-selling “science” books are not, as they claim, really about science, but instead about what the science may be telling us. In other words, they’re essentially philosophy books. “The Grand Design,” as it turns out, falls into this category, and is a metaphysical treatise from a great thinker who happens to be a world-renowned theoretical physicist.

“The Grand Design” is a very well-written book, and largely enjoyable to read, but for anyone seeking concrete answers to the questions posed by Dr. Hawking, it ends in disappointment. While the book is filled with explanations and examples of quantum experiments and their highly successful track record (which is the most enjoyable section of the book), the conclusions drawn by Hawking (and co-author Leonard Mlodinow) at the end ignore his own instructions at the beginning of the book. In fact, the book creates more new questions than it answers. This is due in part to the fact that the authors build their argument around M-theory, which is unverifiable by measurement and is considered by many to be little more than mathematical metaphysics. Scientists in any field should first and foremost concern themselves with evidence verified by test-based results. The fact that Hawking is trading on his credentials as a scientist to put forth a philosophical treatise has raised some eyebrows in the scientific community.

Dr. Hawking and Mlodinow open the argument by explaining that since we don’t really know what existed prior to the Big Bang, and because the physical laws that govern the Universe didn’t come into play until some time during the first second after the singularity, we really aren’t in a position to accurately predict anything about what existed before that. To this point, Hawking has remained true to his scientific background, and true to statements he’s made earlier in his career, such as “I don’t demand that a theory corresponds to reality, because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with a litmus paper. All I’m concerned about is that the theory should predict the results of measurement.”1 So far, so good.

He then notes that his own theory—the very one which forms the basis for this book—is currently untestable and unlikely to ever yield a model that could be tested. And then, without a moment’s hesitation, he proceeds to launch into a book that proposes a theory for the creation of the Universe based upon the law of gravity, a law which Hawking and Mlodinow have just finished telling us came into existence [i]after [/i]the singularity. If readers are paying attention, they should find themselves saying, “Hey! Didn’t he just claim that those very same physical laws wouldn’t be of any use in building a testable model?”

It’s important to point out that Hawking and Mlodinow propose to use this theory—one based upon mathematical metaphysics—to answer some huge questions that have puzzled mankind since he acquired the ability and need to contemplate his own existence. [i]Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist?[/i]

Before attempting to answer these questions, Hawking first provides us with some background information to help the reader better understand quantum theory. Since the earliest “knowable” state of the Universe consisted of tightly-packed elementary particles, the Big Bang itself must have been a quantum event, as the classical laws did not appear until after the singularity. Once the reader has this background information firmly in hand, Hawking then presents his own model for what might have happened. It’s at this point that one should question Dr. Hawking’s motives, even if one is a loyal fan of the great scientist, because it’s here that Hawking begins to write about his theory as though it were demonstrable fact.

From this point forward, Hawking’s language and word choice clearly suggests that he firmly believes it to be a demonstrable fact, and once he begins writing in this mode, his earlier, carefully-worded caveats are completely ignored. M-Theory is no longer an untestable model of a unified theory. It appears to become the firm belief of Dr. Hawking that this is indeed how the Universe began, and he lays it out with authority. If this was not what he meant to imply, then it was a gross oversight not to say so. Hawking’s mind and his grandly-realized ideas draw tremendous respect from the general public, and for him to so strongly argue for something for which he cannot provide any evidence is, to put it lightly, a bit irresponsible. His words carry weight, and when he speaks, people listen. Anyone who has followed the controversy since the release of this book knows exactly what I’m talking about. Hawking not only lays out a metaphysical argument against a creative intelligence, but has recently gone on record with anti-faith comments not supportable with any facts or science. If one is going to use science to make a point, one should provide scientific evidence to make that point. Hawking simply counters one metaphysical idea with an opposing metaphysical idea, and counts on his considerable reputation as a physicist to add weight to his argument.

From a scientific point of view, the primary problem with Hawking’s argument for a universe “from nothing” is that he builds his case with quantum physics. Hawking and Mlodinow have chosen a single interpretation of quantum mechanics known as the Copenhagen interpretation, although this is only one of many possible interpretations. Hawking’s idea isn’t entirely without merit, however, but it does take huge leaps of logic. While quantum theory is one of the most successful theories known to science, its success resides in the study of small elemental systems, not large objects, and not entire universes.

It’s been noted that if we were to try to test quantum theory on large objects, such as objects the size of golf balls, we’d be dealing with distances and speeds such as a millionth of an inch over the course of a century. Hardly the sort of situation that lends itself to a testable model. Most of the criticism of Hawking’s theory is that it attempts to use a theory that works on small systems such as one composed of protons and electrons, and apply it to something the size of a universe. It’s akin to suggesting that since a basketball can be bounced, Jupiter could also be bounced providing you could find a surface large enough from which to bounce it. What is possible in the quantum world doesn’t automatically extrapolate to the classical world.

Additionally, Hawking largely ignores another aspect of quantum physics, one championed and explored by fellow physicist Roger Penrose. Penrose has gone on record claiming that no unified theory of the Universe will ever be complete without accounting for consciousness. Penrose even takes this idea a step farther, and to Hawking, perhaps a step too far. Penrose believes that the only thing linking the quantum world with the classical world is consciousness…human consciousness. This is a startling statement, but then we must remember that quantum theory tells us that the reality of the physical world depends upon our[i] observation [/i]of it.

Some physicists like to soften this idea by suggesting that the reality of the physical world [i]appears[/i] to depend upon our observation of it, but others insist that the first statement was entirely accurate, and completely supported by empirical evidence. Quantum experiments have demonstrated with 100% accuracy that our observation of what is to be measured [i]actually produces[/i] the physical reality of what is to be measured. It’s a startling reality that is referred to as “the skeleton in the closet” of modern physics.2 This idea, when really explored, suggests some mind-blowing conclusions pointing toward teleology, which is why most physicists like to steer clear of it, Hawking among them.

In fact, while Hawking does briefly mention the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics, he mostly sweeps the issue under the rug. If you were to look at the index of the book, you’d find no references to “mind” or “consciousness,” although this issue is one of the central mysteries of quantum mechanics. While mentioning John Wheeler’s work with delayed-choice experiments, the writers do not mention that Wheeler’s original conjecture suggested that his successful experiments implied an observer-dependent universe.

Perhaps one of the most profound questions ever asked in a science book can be found in John Polkinghorne’s book, “Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction.” As he cautiously leads up to the issue of the conscious mind and its uneasy marriage with the quantum world, he asks: “At most times and in most places, the Universe has been devoid of consciousness. Are we to suppose that throughout these vast tracts of cosmic space and time, no quantum processes resulted in a determinate consequence?”3

If the importance of that question didn’t grab your attention, you weren’t paying attention, and I’ll ask you to read it again before proceeding. If you knew the answer to that question, you’d know the very answers to the questions asked by Hawking earlier.

If it’s true that the physical realities of the classical world depend upon our observation of them—and keeping in mind that quantum experiments prove this to be absolutely true 100% of the time—then the most logical conclusion drawn from this evidence suggests that mind is the originator of matter, and not the other way around, as the materialist view claims. If one wished to argue in favor of this idea, one would have the most successful scientific theory ever on their side. Therefore it’s no surprise that Hawking, who no doubt is completely aware of this fact, chose to ignore its implications in his book, while pushing ahead with a metaphysical theory about how a universe can spring into existence “from nothing.”

The fatal flaw in Hawking’s theory has been pointed out again and again by his critics, who come from all belief systems. The flaw in his theory goes beyond the theist/non-theist argument, and runs head-on into a brick wall grounded on simple logic. Hawking’s entire argument for a universe that springs into existence from nothing is flawed because it presupposes an already-existing, information-rich system that includes gravity. Keep in mind that Hawking has already warned us that we cannot speculate about what existed [i]before[/i] the singularity using physical laws that appeared [i]after[/i] it.

Hawking’s “nothing,” as it turns out, isn’t really nothing after all. Nothing is total non-being, total blankness. On this fact alone, Hawking’s theory falls flat, as it requires the preexistence of an eternal system that he fails to explain. This doesn’t prevent him from making a very grand claim by stating that a universe can appear out of “nothing.” If the reader has been paying attention and is aware of this fact while reading the conclusions made in the book, then Hawking’s conclusion is groundless, and is reduced to metaphysical musings built upon a house of cards. One needn’t be a physicist to figure out that Dr. Hawking leaves many contingencies unexplored. Simply paying attention to what Hawking said earlier in this book and others is sufficient. His argument for a “universe from nothing” fails on logical grounds, as it contradicts his earlier statements (which are supported by scientific data). Hawking already realizes the issues and has previously stated as much: “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? 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?”4

Why, indeed.

In the end, the existence of the Universe and its original cause doesn’t lend itself to a testable model, and remains hidden by layers upon layers of contingencies. It’s at this point that the philosophers step in, scientific or otherwise, and it’s here that the battle rages, perhaps endlessly. And yet, as I mentioned earlier, Hawking’s idea isn’t without merit, and it’s a fascinating glimpse into a brilliant mind at work. His contributions to the scientific world are immeasurable and have helped cosmologists move forward in leaps and bounds. But for reasons known only to Stephen Hawking, simply trying to explain the Universe and the physical processes that keep it going aren’t enough for him. He also feels the need to disprove a concept that clearly vexes him, and it’s nowhere more apparent than in “The Grand Design.” For now, anyway, God appears safe from Stephen Hawking.

Quantum physics has opened an entirely new world that only now is becoming known to the general public. Some of the questions raised by this fascinating world seem best addressed by philosophy. Science can tell us how it works, but science appears confounded by why it works the way it does. Yet for many, the findings of science are enough to sustain them. Scientific discovery provides a sense of wonderment that makes them feel they’re a part of something truly amazing, part of a beautiful and mysteriously connected system capable of producing their own intelligence and ability to wonder. Others may comprehend the same scientific facts, feel the same sense of wonder, and beyond it, through the mist of their earthly senses, see the hand of God.

[b]Endnotes: [/b]

1 “The Nature of Time and Space,” by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, p. 121, Princeton University Press.

2 “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness,” by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, p. 13, Oxford University Press.

3 “Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction,” by John C. Polkinghorne, p. 51, Oxford University Press, USA.

4 “A Brief History of Time,” by Stephen Hawking, p. 190, Bantam Books.

About the Author: Kelly Ryan Harriger spent most of his professional career in Los Angeles, California, as a professional communications writer, and he has over 20 years experience in the business, having worked in both advertising agencies and corporate marketing groups. Over the years, the demands of his career helped create a practical understanding of the need to identify clear goals and then write toward them without wasting a reader's time. In addition to his career as a copywriter, he also worked as a reader and story consultant with the William Morris Agency in Beverly Hills for five years, where he developed strong skills at identifying clean, tight storylines for motion picture projects. Kelly Harriger currently lives in Pennsylvania where he owns and operates Pickering Street Productions, a small marketing consultant and copywriting business. He is the author of [url="http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/news/the-grand-design-or-the-murky-metaphysics-of-stephen-hawking/%22God:%20An%20Unauthorized%20Biography.%22"]"God: An Unauthorized Biography."[/url]

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

I apologize for the length I can be quite wordy. haha.
[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308972959' post='2258384']
You know when the idea of the Big Bang was first hypothesized, it was resisted by many scientists of the time! It was held for a long time that the universe was eternal, and this was easier to fit in an atheist paradigm.
[/quote]

This idea may be historically true that people believed this, but an eternal universe does not actually preclude an eternal, necessary being. If matter were in fact eternal, the question arises "where does motion and change come from?" The ancients were actually the first to ask this question. Heraclitus proposed that in reality all things were just "change." Motion and things becoming other things and reproducing meant that nothing was real but all things were change and there are no real substances. Parmenides, however, concluded that matter and substances are really just one and since matter is eternal a principle of change could not be introduced into it; therefore change is an illusion. A third opinion is that of Aristotle, a realist. He supposed that change was real but that things were in fact things/substances. He said that if matter was eternal, there need not be a principle of change within it. One thinks of an inert matter, maybe something like the big bang here. However, we know there is change so we must conceive of substances in a certain way: matter (as the principle of individuation) and a quiddity (that which makes the thing what it is/that which is common to all things that fit this category). The quiddity can change so that a thing becomes something else and the matter is given a different form accordingly and we see a new object that really is something new. Now if matter is eternal why does it change and a better question: why do things move (Aristotle understood well the idea of inertia that "objects will remain at rest of in motion until acted upon by an outside force)? Wouldn't all of matter just have been inert the whole time and never changed and never given a new form/quiddity (Parmenides)? Or wouldn't matter just have been eternally moving and therefore nothing be really real but in eternal flux (Heraclitus)? Aristotle proposes that for there to be motion and change and real substances at the same time there must be this mechanism of matter and quiddity/form within the matter (two principles that aren't really anything without one another since without form there are no things that the matter can be and without matter there is no principle of individuation that allows a form to be something) as well as one that imposes these principles. If matter an eternal principle there must be one that accounts for the principle of change and the ideas of the form. Aristotle calls this eternal, necessary being "Nous" or Mind that thinks and makes these forms a reality to be educed in matter for us to come to know. However, one must note that this "Nous" is not understood as the creator God for the greeks but it does show that simply having an eternal but changing universe does not fit into an atheistic philosophy, that is if one wants to be a realist and say that there are actual things that we come to know rather than saying everything is simply "change."

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308974508' post='2258406']
I don't see any problems with it, other than "there must be a [i]being[/i] that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being."

I would call the uncaused cause the uncaused cause, and not god.
[/quote]

The problem is then the question, "what would a thing need to be to be an uncaused cause?" A thing would need to be eternal and seemingly unmoved, while being able to move or cause without being caused itself. This means that there is nothing higher than it that can move it. Its being would necessarily be eternal, and thus not be material since matter is what accounts for individuation and is necessary for change. It is only in this sense can one understand an unmoved mover. If the unmoved mover were material, it could be moved, hurt, changed etc necessarily as per the definition of matter. However, if the unmoved mover were not material then such a causer or mover could cause or allow matter to change by introducing something new into it. One has to think vertically not horizontally when thinking of the uncaused cause. It is the only way to escape the idea of something causing it. However, then one raises a slew of new questions, what type of "mode of being" would such a thing necessarily have to be able to introduce new objects/change into matter (in a manner similar to the way I have described above)? If there is nothing greater than it that can move it or has caused it, one begins to move into the questions that St. Thomas and St. Anselm and even Aristotle and Plato asked about such a being and the answers they arrived at.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309022439' post='2258637']
I'm going to take a couple different angles on this:

1. I think you are creating a "Non-God" of the gaps. Instead of using gaps in science to prove the existence of God, you are using gaps in science to prove the lack of a God. The big bang needs a cause. Lacking a testable atheistic model for this, you create a non-God of the gaps.[/quote]

I must say this is the first time I've ever seen anybody say "Non-God of the gaps". LOL

I would say that my position is one of complete ignorance. I entertain different hypotheses, god being among them, but ultimately know that at least from my perspective that nothing can be really known about any of them if they can't be reached.

[quote]2. You have a lot of faith, much more than would be needed to believe in Christianity. All of the atheistic explanations for the existence of a cause for the Big Bang require you to put faith in at least one hypothesis that is untestable, unobservable, and unverifiable. You've admitted that they have no "good proof to back them up." It's much more reasonable to put faith in the claims of Jesus, who proved his authenticity and reliability by rising from the dead.[/quote]

I wouldn't put it that way. Sure it takes an unfounded belief for these hypotheses, but this argument is more in line with deism, which is simpler than any theistic religion from which attributes and characteristics of this uncaused cause follow. I don't have faith for theism. Deism is more valid IMO.

I also don't see the Bible as sound historical evidence for extraordinary claims such as Jesus' resurrection and miracles.

[quote]3. You're just buying time. Even if you have a multiverse or a universe with successive big bangs, the first event in the history of the multiverse requires a cause.[/quote]

True, it would just be one step away from us on the infinitely long chain of infinite regress (which I think is the ultimate problem here). Is there good reason to think that we weren't created by something that was itself created and had a beginning?

[quote]4A. How do I know that there was nothing before the Big Bang? I don't. But as a rational being I believe whatever is most likely. If time, space, and matter came into existence at the Big Bang, they had to be caused by something existing outside the dimensions of time, space, and matter. A cause existing outside of time is eternal. A cause existing outside of matter is a spirit. A cause capable of bringing matter into existence ex nihilo has some pretty amesome powers at least approaching omnipotence. We're starting to see some of the attributes of what we consider to be God here.

4B. Taking a different tack on 4, something has to be eternal. Our options are either matter/energy (we know from Einstein that they are the same), or God. The problem with matter being eternal is that matter causes time. You end up with an infinite regress, which is irrational. (I'd be happy to argue just this point if you doubt that infinite regresses are irrational). With God, you avoid the infinite regress because there is no time until He creates matter. Thus an eternal God is completely rational. [/quote]

Going into speculation here: how do you know this omnipotent uncaused cause is [i]consciously capable[/i] of creating a universe?

Just to make my points clearer, I perfectly accept that there could be an uncaused cause (infinite regress doesn't sit well in the mind) but it's really the attributes of this cause that I don't accept so easily.

[quote]5. Your Non-God of the gaps relies on some bad science. I'm feeling very tempted to do a text dump...see next posts. I'll be posting from Magisreasonfaith.org, a site run by a Jesuit Priest and physicist, Fr. Spitzer.[/quote]

Essentially I think so far whatever knowledge that can't be reached somehow isn't science, but philosophising. Arguments for and against god (if outside the realm of science) are also not science.

If, however, whatever cause that happens outside the universe (if there is an "outside") won't have an effect here, then I guess for know we're left with only philosophy.

Edited June 25, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote]Additionally, Hawking largely ignores another aspect of quantum physics, one championed and explored by fellow physicist Roger Penrose. Penrose has gone on record claiming that no unified theory of the Universe will ever be complete without accounting for consciousness. Penrose even takes this idea a step farther, and to Hawking, perhaps a step too far. Penrose believes that the only thing linking the quantum world with the classical world is consciousness…human consciousness. This is a startling statement, but then we must remember that quantum theory tells us that the reality of the physical world depends upon our[i] observation [/i]of it.

Some physicists like to soften this idea by suggesting that the reality of the physical world [i]appears[/i] to depend upon our observation of it, but others insist that the first statement was entirely accurate, and completely supported by empirical evidence. Quantum experiments have demonstrated with 100% accuracy that our observation of what is to be measured [i]actually produces[/i] the physical reality of what is to be measured. It’s a startling reality that is referred to as “the skeleton in the closet” of modern physics.2 This idea, when really explored, suggests some mind-blowing conclusions pointing toward teleology, which is why most physicists like to steer clear of it, Hawking among them.[/quote]

I think that this is very interesting.

I guess most scientists don't like it because it gets twisted into Deepak Chopra-like wu wu all the time, not to mention suggests some uncomfortable kind of solipism.