Evidence for God from Science

Perci,

No a priori assumptions are made, just that you frame one form of the argument without elicited Craig's additional supporting arguments.

Further P1' has no impact upon P1. "Things that begin to exist have a cause for their existence" does not contradict "an actual infinite" or "no actual infinite". Simply that if something begins to exist, then in virtue of its beginning it must have a cause outside of itself.

Really... there are different formulations. And much deeper ones to satisfy many criticisms. Have you read Craig's 220+ page book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument? If not, attempting to refute it is perhaps akin to refuting a strawman. Especially in one small post. There is often a lot of reasoning packed behind one premise. And the premises of that reasoning may even have their own reasoning. So I really feel your applying a broad stroke here in your motivation to cross it off.

To watch a video of the Kalam in the simple form that Craig initially puts forward visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/kalam (play the video there which constructs the argument very well in a clear and simple manner).

*Waves to Kurieuo*

Um...just a point (And I've only listened to the first very few minute s of your link) BUT....in physics it is known that particles can and do literally pop into and out of nothing all the time.

In fact Hawking showed that even the reat gravity traps called Black-holes effectively 'evaporate' by this principal (The type of radiation was named after him)

Just thought I'd mention it.

Will listen to the rest when i have more time. It does sound interesting, thank'e fro the link.

Very much cheers to all.

Thadeyus wrote:*Waves to Kurieuo*

Um...just a point (And I've only listened to the first very few minute s of your link) BUT....in physics it is known that particles can and do literally pop into and out of nothing all the time.

No it doesn't. That's a myth by people who haven't done any more than read popular expositions of quantum physics and haven't talked to anyone with any real knowledge about it. But even if that were true (and again, it is not), that wouldn't challenge P1, because "popping out of nothing" is not the same thing as "coming into existence without a cause." In QM, we're very well aware of the conditions that must be present in order for what you are talking about to happen. That is to say, there very much are causes to these particles "popping into existence," and those are rather well known, so much so that we can predict them within a rather small range or probabilities.

And this is why pop science ought not be brought into serious philosophical discussion.

Jac3510 wrote: No it doesn't. That's a myth by people who haven't done any more than read popular expositions of quantum physics and haven't talked to anyone with any real knowledge about it. But even if that were true (and again, it is not), that wouldn't challenge P1, because "popping out of nothing" is not the same thing as "coming into existence without a cause." In QM, we're very well aware of the conditions that must be present in order for what you are talking about to happen. That is to say, there very much are causes to these particles "popping into existence," and those are rather well known, so much so that we can predict them within a rather small range or probabilities.

And this is why pop science ought not be brought into serious philosophical discussion.

Okay...so what is Hawking radiation? A link perhaps for my perusal? What is the thing you are trying to explain?

Also, it'll take me a while to get my head around "Popping into existence"=/="Coming into existence with out a cause".

(Phone post, so brief and quoteless unfortunately)

Jac,

Whether you want to take them as metaphysical or empirical claims, P1 and P1' share the problem that they rely on certain unwarranted assumptions about reality. For the terms "begin", "cause" and "actual infinity" to have any meaning, references to space, time, and causality are needed. Without knowing what was before the Big Bang - which we don't and arguably can't due to the singularity - we can't say that infinities are impossible or that all things have causes.

Craig and others who support Kalam make many fine, internally valid and empirically incontestable arguments, but they're all stymied by singularities. Craig's formulation becomes invalid even before reaching P2 because of this, and the classical formulation's P1 would fall to this even if not for the fact that it was actively called into question by empirical evidence.

Also, Jac, regarding your post to Thadyeus, there are phenomena in QM that are truly non-deterministic and for want of a better word uncaused. Such phenomena all have necessary conditions to appear to be sure, but for some it can be demonstrated that there are no sufficient conditions that lead to them.

Edit - in other words we can say we know the "causes" of said phenomena as we know what conditions must always be present before the phenomenon can take place, but we can also confidently say that we could neither cause (that is introduce a set of conditions that are guaranteed to induce the phenomenon) nor truly predict it beyond a probability.

Thadeyus wrote:*Waves to Kurieuo*

Um...just a point (And I've only listened to the first very few minute s of your link) BUT....in physics it is known that particles can and do literally pop into and out of nothing all the time.

In fact Hawking showed that even the reat gravity traps called Black-holes effectively 'evaporate' by this principal (The type of radiation was named after him)

Just thought I'd mention it.

Will listen to the rest when i have more time. It does sound interesting, thank'e fro the link.

Very much cheers to all.

Hi Thad,

I feel that there is some distortion in what is actually communicated here re: science, that is, the physics at a quantum level.

Consider that with quantum physics, there is still a causal link to a higher level of physics that are predictable in a cause and effect manner. So being founded upon the quantum level, however odd particles might appear to behave, the conclusion of this is that there are still causal links involved.

I mean think about it. Isn't it rather absurd to be thinking mini-"big bangs" are always occurring with particles just constantly popping into existence from absolutely nothing? Surely skepticism against God and in particular, the cosmological argument, hasn't gone so far as to propose such an unnatural idea? Where's the investigation...? Surely Science doesn't stop there. In actuality Science doesn't stop there, but rather there seems to be a break down in communication between physicists, popular media and lay people.

Consider the following explanation:

The major intuitive support behind premise #1 is that something can’t come from nothing without a supernatural cause. The case of virtual particles “popping into existence” does not overturn this intuition, because these entities do not emerge from “nothing.” They instead emerge from the quantum vacuum, or a field with a very low energy level. Columbia University Philosopher and theoretical physicist David Albert writes,

• [V]acuum state—no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff . . . the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those [quantum] fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.

To add my own understanding, the "vacuum" that these particles pop out of is misunderstood as "a vacuum of nothingness." Rather, this vacuum is actually a sea of energy. So when quantum physicists say that particles pop into existence from a vacuum, this is not equivalent to particles popping into existence from nothing but rather particular arrangements of energy.

To Kurieuo,

Oh, indeed I understand the distinction.

Much cheers to all.

PerciFlage wrote:(Phone post, so brief and quoteless unfortunately)

Jac,

Whether you want to take them as metaphysical or empirical claims, P1 and P1' share the problem that they rely on certain unwarranted assumptions about reality. For the terms "begin", "cause" and "actual infinity" to have any meaning, references to space, time, and causality are needed. Without knowing what was before the Big Bang - which we don't and arguably can't due to the singularity - we can't say that infinities are impossible or that all things have causes.

Craig and others who support Kalam make many fine, internally valid and empirically incontestable arguments, but they're all stymied by singularities. Craig's formulation becomes invalid even before reaching P2 because of this, and the classical formulation's P1 would fall to this even if not for the fact that it was actively called into question by empirical evidence.

You don't get to just assert that they are unwarranted. You can certainly ask for warrant, but just asserting as much shows a gross ignorance on your part of the actual arguments underlying each premise. I suspect there are other serious problems here, especially an assumption of scientism, but that's just based on the trajectory of how these discussions normally go. Perhaps you would surprise me in such a debate (though for me for doubting it).

Anyway, you don't need to know what is before the Big Bang to prove P1. What is before the BB has nothing to do with it whatsoever. P1 is simply a metaphysically necessary principle, as necessary as "nothing can both be and not be in the same way at the same time." Obviously, saying it's "metaphysically necessary" is a claim that needs defense, but that's just a standard part of the argument. It is one, in fact, most people don't need proving because they are honest enough to recognize the truth of the proposition "nothing, by definition, cannot produce a something."

PerciFlage wrote:Also, Jac, regarding your post to Thadyeus, there are phenomena in QM that are truly non-deterministic and for want of a better word uncaused. Such phenomena all have necessary conditions to appear to be sure, but for some it can be demonstrated that there are no sufficient conditions that lead to them.

Edit - in other words we can say we know the "causes" of said phenomena as we know what conditions must always be present before the phenomenon can take place, but we can also confidently say that we could neither cause (that is introduce a set of conditions that are guaranteed to induce the phenomenon) nor truly predict it beyond a probability.

Non-deterministic does not mean uncaused. My choice to respond to this what not deterministic (if we hold to free will). That doesn't mean by choice was uncaused. It was caused by me.

So you are mistaken here on two grounds, even beyond your fundamental misconception just noted. First, the very fact that there are necessary conditions points to a cause. If there is no cause, then by definition there can be no necessary conditions. If something is truly uncaused, then it is meaningless to talk of conditions for it happening. It is far more absurd to talk about necessary conditions. Second, the fact that we cannot predict in every case what the effect will be does not mean that the event is uncaused. That points to an epistemological problem, not to anything in the nature of reality itself. Take a life insurance actuary. He can tell you with 95% certainty how many people will die in a given year from particular causes. He cannot tell you which people those will be. His lack of ability to predict the specifics doesn't mean that those specifics have no cause, and the same is true here.

On a final note, as K notes above, it's also misleading (as in, the fallacy of equivocation) to say that QM has particles popping into existence out of nothing. Vacuum states are not "nothing." They have quite a few properties (among them is the ability to spontaneously produce particles), and anything with properties is, by definition, not a nothing.

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

Thad, I don't know what's so hard about understanding "Popping into existence"=/="Coming into existence with out a cause". It's rather clear and evident in your own wording. Replace "Popping" in your first clause with "Coming" and it should be rather clear. As far as Hawking radiation goes, I'm not going to make your argument for you. You raised it. It's your job to show how it serves as a counterexample.

Thadeyus wrote:To Kurieuo,

Oh, indeed I understand the distinction.

Much cheers to all.

Understand, this is just one argument in the landscape of arguments for/against God's existence...

But, would you agree that in the landscape of arguments for/against God that the Cosmological Argument is +1 for Theism?

Just interested to know where your head is at on this particular argument.

Kurieuo wrote:Understand, this is just one argument in the landscape of arguments for/against God's existence...

But, would you agree that in the landscape of arguments for/against God that the Cosmological Argument is +1 for Theism?

Just interested to know where your head is at on this particular argument.

Personally? Nope...it doesn't work for me, sorry.

Much cheers to all.

Evidence against God:

Problem of evil
Evolution
Lack of outright disclosure of Himself

I don't know if these can be viewed as evidence against God per say.
The problem of evil is a problem ONLY if you think that evil serves no purpose and, to be honest, history shows us that is not the case.
Evolution isn't evidence against God but evidence against a LITERAL and CONCRETE interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2.
Lack of disclosure is evidence that, IF God exists, He doesn't think that it is in our best interested for Him to come "crashing into our world" like a gang buster, know what I mean?
It is not evidence against God existing.

Thadeyus wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Understand, this is just one argument in the landscape of arguments for/against God's existence...

But, would you agree that in the landscape of arguments for/against God that the Cosmological Argument is +1 for Theism?

Just interested to know where your head is at on this particular argument.

Personally? Nope...it doesn't work for me, sorry.

Much cheers to all.

Now that's an argument grounded in reason.

Byblos wrote:

Thadeyus wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Understand, this is just one argument in the landscape of arguments for/against God's existence...

But, would you agree that in the landscape of arguments for/against God that the Cosmological Argument is +1 for Theism?

Just interested to know where your head is at on this particular argument.

Personally? Nope...it doesn't work for me, sorry.

Much cheers to all.

Now that's an argument grounded in reason.

No, it's an honest, simple and direct answer from myself to some one's honest, simple and direct question.