Evidence for God from Science

And yet another commercial for Aquinas' take on the cosmological argument from yours truly!

Okay, so first, the good stuff. A paper by Ahmed Farag Alia and Saurya Das, two Egyptian physicists, titled "Cosmology from Quantum Potential" was recently published in Physics Lettters B (741, no. 4 (February 2015), 276-79) that argues that the universe is, in fact, beginningless and that the Big Bang never happened. If you have access to ScienceDirect, you can read the paper itself here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9314009381

And here is an alternative link -- I don't know if you have to pay or not:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093v3 (or http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3 for bibliographic page)

If these don't provide you access, and if you want to trust media reports (phys.org, in this case), you can read a summary of the problem and their argument here:
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... verse.html

The thrust of their argument goes back to 1950, when a certain David Bohm argued for a change in the way we measure the shortest distance between two points on a curved space (using quantum trajectories). The upshot is that when you run the equations the way these authors do using, in part, Bohm's ideas, a Big Bang never happens because singularities never happen, and singularities never happen because particles never actually cross points.

Anyway, the conclusion of their paper is as follows:

• In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe. While inhomogeneous or anisotropic perturbations are not expected to significantly affect these results, it would be useful to redo the current study with such small perturbations to rigorously confirm that this is indeed the case. Also, as noted in the introduction, we assume it to follow general relativity, whereas the Einstein equations may themselves undergo quantum corrections, especially at early epochs, further affecting predictions. Given the robust set of starting assumptions, we expect our main results to continue to hold even if and when a fully satisfactory theory of quantum gravity is formulated. For the cosmological constant problem at late times on the other hand, quantum gravity effects are practically absent and can be safely ignored. We hope to report on these and related issues elsewhere. (p.278)

Now, I'm not qualified to discuss whether or not their math is correct or what potential problems or promises this approach holds. There are some on this board who are far better equipped than I am for that. I don't even know what this ultimately implies--maybe another take on an oscilating universe? Not sure. I point it out because it's the kind of news we (ought to be) getting used to.

As for my soap box . . .

I think this is exactly why Aquinas' reasoning process is infinitely better when arguing for God's existence. With all respect to WLC, I think we are setting ourselves up for a huge embarrassment in the next twenty or so years if we keep pushing the KCA as the fundamental argument for God. Most of you know that I've been arguing this for years. The fact of the matter is that if the second premise of the KCA fails (i.e., "The universe came into existence")--or even if others have warrant for thinking it fails--we don't want to leave ourselves open up to the charge of blind faith. The prolifigation of these models are giving more and more peope pause (with or without cause) for questioning that premise, too.

Once again, I direct you to what Aquinas said over 700 years ago:

• Now, these arguments [that the universe is not eternal], though not devoid of probability, lack absolute and necessary conclusiveness. Hence it is sufficient to deal with them quite briefly, lest the Catholic faith might appear to be founded on ineffectual reasonings, and not, as it is, on the most solid teaching of God ( SCG II.38.8 )

I have the same concern as Aquinas. And, of course, that's why I think the First Way is far superior. For even if the model being proposed (or any future model) turns out to be correct, it still points to God's existence.

I'm not advocating, by the way, an absolute rejection of the KCA. I think it needs to be used in light of what it is (which I explain thoroughly in the paper linked above). I think, more than that, it should be used secondarily to the argument for God as provided by Aquinas. For those who are not terribly familiar with that argument, I would point you to these two threads, which offer some brief explanations/defenses of the idea:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 19&t=39863 (shorter -- with a good schema provided by Byblos)
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =3&t=39894 (longer -- a different schema and a more detailed defense)

I am curious if any of our resident scientists could look at the original paper and offer their thoughts, too. Thanks much!

If the universe never had a beginning wouldn't that create the paradox of an infinite regression of events and we could never get to the present?

That's an argument, Daniel. I don't buy it. So far as I can tell, it commits a composition fallacy. "The universe" doesn't have to get to the present. Individual particles do. When people argue that the universe has been around forever, they don't mean this or that entity. They are referring to the totality of entities as we have them in our (known) world.

Understood that way, there is no paradox. The universe at it exists now just did not exist five minutes ago, much less 14BY ago. Therefore, nothing had to traverse an infinite amount of time to get to the present.

Also, I'm not ever sure that the objection makes as much sense as we give it credit for. I think the phrase "at some point in the infinite past," or something like it, is self-contradictory anyway. The moment you mention a point, you are no longer in an infinite past. So there's probably a category error going on here, also. The idea is counter-intuitive, for sure. But that doesn't mean that it is self-contradictory.

Granted, a lot of philosophers disagree with me. But a lot agree with me (and we are talking Christian philosophers here!). I would not want to base my faith on something as abstract, much less something as debatable, as all that.

edit:

For what it is worth, here is Aquinas' take on the matter:

• Also, an infinite number of things cannot be traversed. But, if the world had always existed, an infinite number of things would have now been traversed, for what is past is passed by; and if the world always existed, then there are an infinite number of past days or revolutions of the sun. . . . [But this argument is not] cogent. For, although the infinite does not exist actually and all at once, it can exist successively. For, so considered, any infinite is finite. Therefore, being finite, any single one of the preceding solar revolutions could be completed; but if, on the assumption of the world’s eternity, all of them are thought of as existing simultaneously, then there would be no question of a first one, am, therefore, of a passing through them, for, unless there we two extremes, no transition is possible. (SCT II.28.4, 11)

And again,

• Then, too, it follows that it is possible to proceed to infinity in the line of efficient causes, if the engendering of things has gone on perpetually—and this in turn follows necessarily on the hypothesis that the world always existed; the father is the cause of his son, and another person the cause of that father, and so on endlessly. . . . [But this] objection to the theory of the world’s eternity that is raised . . . have compelling force. For, according to the philosophers, it is impossible to proceed to infinity in the order of efficient causes which act together at the same time, because in that case the effect would have to depend on an infinite number of actions simultaneously existing. And such causes are essentially infinite, because their infinity is required for the effect caused by them. On the other hand, in the sphere of non-simultaneously acting causes, it is not, according to the partisans of the perpetual generation theory, impossible to proceed to infinity. And the infinity here is accidental to the causes; thus, it is accidental to Socrates’ father that he is another man’s son or not. But it is not accidental to the stick, in moving the stone, that it be moved by the hand; for the stick moves just so far as it is moved. (6,13)

I think those are fair representations of the argument you are suggesting, and perfectly acceptable and reasonable rebuttals.

Interesting Jac, I see what Aquinas is saying (I hope), but now I am confused, when the Bible says "in the beginning" does that not imply a start point or if the universe always existed does this imply that Genesis is more metaphorical?

If the universe has always existed, this would certainly clear up a lot of confusion in my mind of how God relates to time and our universe.

I'm not sure I ever fully baught into the big bang myself but this does not mean the universe is everlasting,it seems to me this would effect both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the law of entropy that we can actually see and observe ourselves unlike evolution for yet another scientific theory and I do not see how they could ever prove the universe never had a beginning.Even if the big bang is not true or has flaws this does not mean this new theory is true,it always comes down to evidence with me and I don't see much right now,this is simply a new scientific theory.If these scientists accept evolution their credibility goes down for me right from the start on what they propose because I know they don't take evidence very seriously.

We already know the sun is burning up all of its hydrogen and will eventually run out of fuel and for every star we know about and no sun light and no life on the earth or anywhere else in the universe also,so it can't be everlasting,because of entropy.There might be a lot of hydrogen left to burn in the universe but it would all be burned up eventually so that no stars could exist.Hydrogen is not evolving producing more and once its burned up it will never be hydrogen again.

Neither Aquinas nor I am suggesting the universe actually has no beginning. He is saying that we ought not argue for God from a beginning, because 1. the arguments for a beginning are not conclusive and 2. it is better to argue from the contingency of the universe--a well established principle. Aquinas thought, and I agree, that we can know that the universe had a beginning because Scripture says so. He thinks the inconclusive arguments support what faith says, not prove it.

Jac3510 wrote:Neither Aquinas nor I am suggesting the universe actually has no beginning. He is saying that we ought not argue for God from a beginning, because 1. the arguments for a beginning are not conclusive and 2. it is better to argue from the contingency of the universe--a well established principle. Aquinas thought, and I agree, that we can know that the universe had a beginning because Scripture says so. He thinks the inconclusive arguments support what faith says, not prove it.

I think I might actually agree with Aquinas and he might be saying the same thing I am,just in a different way.I was simply commenting on what I think about it.I did not think you were saying that.

Someone needs to break down those papers in laymans terms.

A few problems I have with an eternal universe:

1) How you explain the entropy of this one and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics?
2) If it is an oscillating model - then how do you get over the problem of entropy being carried over through progressive bumps? Therefore still leading to a beginning. What is resetting the entropy.
3) How do you override the BVG theorem for this model?
4) How do you reconcile it with Genesis 1:1?
5) What is God's purpose in a universe that is always existed? Where is there a need for creation?


Any suggestions?

Silvertusk.

1,2, and 3 are scientific problems. I am absolutely unqualified in any and every way to suggest answers. Perhaps someone else here could. I would certainly be interested to see them. In general, though, that's exactly the kind of point I was making in my OP. I would argue that those problems are real, and that they suggest that the universe has a true beginning. But they do not prove it. Science can't do that because of what it is. So if we defend our belief in God on the basis that the the universe had a beginning via those scientific arguments, we have to be prepared that someone with more scientific knowledge that we have could come along and offer either a real answer to the our reasoning or else offer one that is probable enough that a person has warrant in rejecting our conclusion to give these other solutions time to get fully worked out. Again, that does NOT mean that we should not use arguments like the KCA or the true beginning of the universe to reinforce our beliefs. It is only to say that those arguments ought to be given their appropriate place--a secondary, supportive role.

The last two points are theological, and I don't know that they are as hard to overcome. I can imagine lots of answers. You could take Gen 1 in a mythical sense (as many do). You could take it as teaching a true beginning after all, but something that is known by faith. There would be related "appearance of age" objections, but I have never found those convincing at all (especially not the ones offered on the main site--frankly, I find most of them juvenile and one in particular morally reprehensive). Against all that, you could take bara not to mean "create" after all but rather to mean "fashion." There are syntactical tricks you could employ. Lots of options here. And as for the fifth question, I would suppose such a universe would have the same purpose as this one: to glorif God. There doesn't need to be a creation at all--not this one or any one. If God chose to create an eternally existing universe, then why not? Sometimes the answer is nothing more than the brute fact of God's freedom. To suggest that God needs a reason for everything He does is actually to deny God's freedom, to make Him a contingent effect, because it means that God only acts as He must. But if we assert that God is truly free, we have to acknowledge that for some, if not many or even all, things that God does, He does so precisely and for no other reason that He so willed it. We can argue that it is fitting for God to do so and so, and as such what we see God did teaches us something about God's nature. Perhaps. But we have to be careful about assigning necessity to anything He does.

With that said, I would definitely be interested in that layman's breakdown.

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

And Able, I'm sorry, I was actually commenting on Daniel's remarks. Yours were similar, I think, to what ST said just above and I hadn't gotten to them yet. You raise some scientific points, which are fine. I would only say the same thing I said before. Scientific conclusions just always need to be held tentatively, and I would rather not base my faith on something--on anything--tentative. But maybe that's just me.

Jac wrote:
... If God chose to create an eternally existing universe, then why not?...

I don't know if it's just me, but that doesn't make any sense. If something could exist eternally(without beginning or end), then it wouldn't be created, right?

RickD wrote:

Jac wrote:
... If God chose to create an eternally existing universe, then why not?...

I don't know if it's just me, but that doesn't make any sense. If something could exist eternally(without beginning or end), then it wouldn't be created, right?

Thank you Jac for that thoughtful response. And Rick - i totally agree with you here. Which for me it is a major theological problem. And going back to Genesis 1:1 I take some of the alternatives you suggested (I know you don't ascribe to any of them in particular) but the problem is not just in Genesis 1:1 but all through the bible - In the Psalms and the first chapter of John for example where God's creative power is described.

Silvertusk wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac wrote:
... If God chose to create an eternally existing universe, then why not?...

I don't know if it's just me, but that doesn't make any sense. If something could exist eternally(without beginning or end), then it wouldn't be created, right?

Thank you Jac for that thoughtful response. And Rick - i totally agree with you here. Which for me it is a major theological problem. And going back to Genesis 1:1 I take some of the alternatives you suggested (I know you don't ascribe to any of them in particular) but the problem is not just in Genesis 1:1 but all through the bible - In the Psalms and the first chapter of John for example where God's creative power is described.

The idea outght not be all too strange, particularly for us Christians/Trinitarians for it is embedded in the essence of the Trinity. Isn't that what is meant by the eternal procession of the Son from the Father? There is nothing logical that precludes God from creating an eternal universe.

Byblos wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac wrote:
... If God chose to create an eternally existing universe, then why not?...

I don't know if it's just me, but that doesn't make any sense. If something could exist eternally(without beginning or end), then it wouldn't be created, right?

Thank you Jac for that thoughtful response. And Rick - i totally agree with you here. Which for me it is a major theological problem. And going back to Genesis 1:1 I take some of the alternatives you suggested (I know you don't ascribe to any of them in particular) but the problem is not just in Genesis 1:1 but all through the bible - In the Psalms and the first chapter of John for example where God's creative power is described.

The idea outght not be all too strange, particularly for us Christians/Trinitarians for it is embedded in the essence of the Trinity. Isn't that what is meant by the eternal procession of the Son from the Father? There is nothing logical that precludes God from creating an eternal universe.

Eternal procession aside(only God is eternal in the true sense. No beginning nor end, and The Son is God, so he is eternal), please explain how it can be logical for God to create something without a beginning, such as an eternal universe. If God creates it, it comes into existence. If it comes into existence, then it had a beginning.

Thoughts?

Silvertusk wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac wrote:
... If God chose to create an eternally existing universe, then why not?...

I don't know if it's just me, but that doesn't make any sense. If something could exist eternally(without beginning or end), then it wouldn't be created, right?

Thank you Jac for that thoughtful response. And Rick - i totally agree with you here. Which for me it is a major theological problem. And going back to Genesis 1:1 I take some of the alternatives you suggested (I know you don't ascribe to any of them in particular) but the problem is not just in Genesis 1:1 but all through the bible - In the Psalms and the first chapter of John for example where God's creative power is described.

Silver,

Unless I'm missing something, I cannot see how an eternal universe would not be a MAJOR problem for the existence of God. Doesn't it go against what we believe about only God being eternal?

Even IF the universe has been around forever, the fact is that we know it is changing ( expanding).
I don't know o f anyone that believes the universe has always been the exact way it is right now.