I had typed most of my reply to this thread when Firefox crashed since I hadn't shut down my computer for a few weeks. I was too frustrated to type my reply again immediately, and then I didn't know where the thread was, so I apologize for the delay.
1. Did the universe have a beginning?
It seems clear that if one claims that there was no beginning to the universe, then this is equivalent to saying that there have been an actual infinite number of past events in the history of the universe.
Not necessarily.
The problem is this: actual infinity can be a useful conceptual tool in mathematics, but it does not seem possible for an actual infinite to exist in the real world. (A number that approaches infinity certainly seems to exist in the real world, but note that that number is still finite.)
This is essentially true, infinity is not a number. By definition it's a numerically unlimited process.
Craig offers the following case. (2) Imagine a library with an actual infinite number of books. Suppose further that there is an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of black books in the library. Does it really make sense to say that there are as many black books in the library as there are red and black books together? Furthermore, I could withdraw all the black books and not change the total holdings in the library. In this way, actual infinity, if it exists in the real world, implies unreasonable consequences.
Of course it implies unreasonable consequences. It makes no sense to try to imagine a library with an "infinite number" of books. Infinity is not a number. Also, I might point out the concept of cardinality. Some infinities are greater than others.
Another way to approach this question is to consider the fact that it is impossible to count to infinity.
Of course you can't count to infinity, that implies a limit, or end to infinity, and also that it's a number. But by definition it has no numerical limit, and is not a number.
If we claim that there was no beginning to the universe, then this is equivalent to saying that the beginning of the universe was at negative infinity.
No, it's not equivalent at all. The equivalent of saying there was no beginning is that the Universe had no beginning.
But if that were the case, then the past could never have been exhaustively traversed to reach the present. In order to reach this moment, how many actual years must have passed? If the universe did not have a beginning, then before we can reach any event in the history of the cosmos, there has already transpired an actual infinite number of events. (i.e., an infinite number of years have been counted in order to reach today.) Yet this seems to violate the observation that it is impossible to count to infinity; in the real world, we can always approach infinity, but never reach it.
The flaw here lies in the reasoning used to reach the conclusion above: that the Universe's beginning is at negative infinity. One can point to any point on a supposedly infinite line and calculate the number of points between here and there, but infinity is not a point on the line, remember? So obviously you can't say there's an infinite number of points between any two points on the line.
Two current scientific theories support this conclusion that there must have been a beginning to the universe. The big bang theory (3) implies that the universe sprang into existence from nothing an infinite time ago - that space, even time itself, "started" from a single point. As scientist Robert Jastrow puts it, "What is the ultimate solution to the origin of the Universe? The answers provided by the astronomers are disconcerting and remarkable. Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation." Another scientific theory is actually a law, the second law of thermodynamics, involving a concept known as entropy. It is one of the fundamental, best-established laws of science. The second law states that the universe is irreversibly moving toward a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy. For example, if you were to leave an open bottle of perfume in a room, the perfume will evaporate from the bottle and disperse in such a way that it will become uniformly distributed throughout the room. Applied to the universe as a whole, the second law tells us that the universe is wearing down irreversibly. But since a state of maximum entropy has not yet been reached, the universe has not been here forever. As theoretical physicist Paul Davies puts it: "The universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state (known among the physicist as the 'heat death' of the universe) an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist."
First, the big bang is not necessarily the origin of the Universe (notice the capitol), but only the origin of the universe as we know it (no capitol). I contend that time did not begin at the big bang, but only the known universe had it's origins there. String theory agrees with this. As for the 2nd theory of thermodynamics, that too would have it's origins with the origin of the known universe.
2. If it had a beginning, was that beginning caused?
Since the universe had a beginning, it would mean that there is such a thing as the "first event".
If it had a beginning, the first event would have been it's creation, and since creation is a change of state (from non-existence to existence), it requires at least an instant of time to pass in order for creation to occur. Therefore, time must have existed prior to the creation of the Universe. So either time exists independantly of the Universe, or is part of the Universe and it is eternal and was not created.
It would also seem that the most reasonable view to take would be that the first event was caused (4).
The law of cause and effect is codependant with time. Without time there is no cause and effect, and without cause and effect, there is no time (something has to cause a change of state or it will remain the same). If time must exist before the Universe (assuming it's creation) then so must cause and effect, so it is reasonable.
The principle that something does not come from nothing without cause is a reasonable one.
This does not support the argument for God, because if it applies to everything in the Universe, and even the Universe itself, then it applies to God as well. Care to retract the statement?
By contrast, God does not need a cause, since he is neither an event nor a contingent being. He is a necessary Being and such a being does not need a cause.
Demonstrate/prove that:
1 - That a being can be necessary.
2 - God is necessary, and not contingent.
3 - A necessary being does not need to be caused.
In fact, it is a categorical fallacy to ask for a cause for God since this is really asking for a cause for the Being from which the first event arose.
The fallacy lies in the contradiction between cause and effect, and the definition of God. It remains to be seen that the existence of God is the correct resolution to the contradiction. God is supposed to be a resolution to the conflict between the first event (creation of the Universe) and the law of cause and effect. God does not resolve the conflict because if the Universe must have a cause then so must God. If God requires no cause, then neither does the Universe. If God is possible, he's not necessary. The Universe is.
If we were to continue in this categorical fallacy, then the first event no longer becomes the first event; the previous event (namely God coming into being) is the first event, and so on and so forth forever backwards until we throw out the idea that the universe had a beginning at all.
Exactly.
But since it was established that the universe does have a beginning, we must accept the fact that there is such a thing as the "first event." And this event, by the very nature of events, must have been caused. And this cause, since it is the cause of time and the universe, must have existed outside of time and the universe.
It has not been established.
Time cannot have been caused, as time and causality are codependant, you can't have one without the other. The very notion of "outside time" is nonsensical. If God were "outside time" he would be unable to change, or influence anything, rendering him powerless to create the Universe, which is required by definition. Thus, the formulation of God is a paradox. God cannot create the Universe from a timeless state, because if God wills the Universe to exist in a timeless state, then it would have always existed containing only God with the intention existing for all eternity. Or, if God creates the Universe "outside time" then there is no time at which the Universe does not exist, and the Universe exists through all eternity.
3. If it was caused, then was the cause personal or impersonal?
Prior to the first event, there was a state of affairs which can be described by the following: there was not time, space, or change of any kind. In that state, what does one really mean when he (or she - the legion of PC strikes again ) thinks of the "cause" of the universe being impersonal? Surely the cause itself cannot be from the universe itself, for it does not exist yet. One can possibly think that it was the Laws of Nature (impersonal laws of physics or math) that somehow caused the first event, for that is the only impersonal, immaterial thing that could have existed prior to the first event. However, the vague idea that laws of nature can cause events is faulty.
"Vague idea"? The notion of the laws of nature being unable to cause events is faulty!
The question of a personal or impersonal cause seems irrelevant, and jumping the gun.
The law of physics decree that when one billiard ball (A) sets another billiard ball (B) in motion, the momentum lost by A exactly equals the momentum gained by B. This is a law.
Not exactly. Perhaps in a perfect vacuum, sans gravitational field, but such is not the case.
That is, this the pattern to which the movement of the two billiard balls must conform - provided, of course, that something set ball A in motion. And here comes the snag. The law won't set it in motion. It is usually a man with a cue that does that. But that would bring us immediately to consider a personal cause, so let us stay off that path and assume that the ball was lying on a table in a ship and that what set it in motion was a lurch of the ship. Still, it was not the law which produced the movement; it was a wave. And that wave, though it certainly moved
according to the laws of physics, was not moved by them. It was shoved by other waves, and by winds, and so forth. And however far we trace the story back we would never find the Laws of Nature causing anything. The obvious conclusion is this: in the whole history of the universe the Laws of Nature have never produced a single event. (5) They are the pattern to which every event must conform, provided only that it can be induced to happen. But how do you get it to "happen"? The Laws of Nature can give you no help there. All events simply obey them, just as all operations with money obey the laws of arithmetic. Add six pennies to six and the result will certainly be twelve pennies. But arithmetic by itself won't put a single penny in your pocket.
You're semi-correct. The laws of nature are analogous to formulae and various states are like data for the variables. The ball can be said to have been put into motion directly because of the laws of physics though, for it is because of them that it behaved in the manner it did. The state which existed when the ball was first induced into motion would not have occured, or would have occured differently if it weren't for the laws of physics (or if they were different).
The only way for the first event to arise spontaneously from a timeless, changeless state of affairs, and at the same time be caused, is this: the event resulted from the free act of a person or agent.
This makes no sense. A free act is an event in itself and contradicts a timeless changeless state, caused or not.
We can observe this phenomenon in our daily lives. In the world, persons or agents spontaneously act to bring about events (which poses a huge problem to the whole idea that humans are nothing more than conglomerations of molecules in motion, but we won't get into that here). I myself "will" to raise my arm, and it happens. There may be necessary conditions for me to do this (e.g., I have a normal arm, I am not tied down), but these are not sufficient. The event is only realized when I freely act. Similarly, the first event came about when an agent freely chose to bring it about, and this personal choice is the only possible first cause that is not contingent on any other causes.
There are many determinists who would argue that with you, though I contend that deterministic or not, free will is not supernatural. This is also not an example of an event arising from a timeless, changeless state.
In summary, it is most reasonable to believe that the universe had a beginning which was caused by a timeless, personal agent.
It's not reasonable when the reasons aren't reasonable.
This is not a proof that such a being is the God of the Bible, but it is a strong statement that the world had its beginning by the act of a person. And this is at the very least a good reason to believe in some form of theism.
It is not a proof at all. It's not even a stable argument.
However, the parallel ought to be noted between this mysterious agent and the God of the Bible. Could it be possible that the Will that started the universe is the God of the Bible, who introduces Himself as such (6)? Could it be possible that the immutable, timeless agent that created the universe is the God of the Bible - who claims to be the beginning and the end, who always was, is, and is to come (7)- the timeless "I am" (8)?
The God of the bible has already been disproven countless times, so no, even if God does exist, the bible cannot be relied upon for any truth regarding God (or anything else for that matter).
Even if the Universe was somehow created or otherwise had an origin, this does not logically support the conclusion that it was created by God.
1. Is there an objective moral law?
2. If there is an objective moral law, then what is its most probable origin?
I believe there are objective moral values, and that they are largely learned from experience (or taught), such as trust.
Regardless, no argument from morals can prove the existence of God, only disprove certain formulations of God, such as that layed out in the Christian bible.
See here for more:
-
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/raymond_bradley/moral.html
Are we to take it that evolution is a fact, proven to the limits of scientific rigor? If that is the inference then we must disagree most strongly. We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution. What we do have is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in favor of it and as yet no better alternative.
Evolution has indeed been proven. Every step in the process of evolution has been observed both in the lab and in nature. Speciation itself has also been observed, both in the lab and in nature. See here for more info:
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/
One hundred reputable scientists have subscribed to the following statement, which was originally posted at One Hundred Scientists...:
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
http://www.objectivityinscience.org/dissent.html
Darwinism is slightly outdated, lol. Besides, this is an appeal to authority, which is not a valid argument.
