The central question here appears to be “was there ever nothing?” I do not believe there was, indeed I happen to agree that a state of nothingness would ask some pretty difficult questions given that we are plainly something.
However, I see some pretty blatant legerdemain in claiming that there must have been a nothingness somewhere, some time, and going on from there with spectacular tricks showing how modern cosmology is a bunch of hooey would be child’s play. If time emerged from a timeless singularity (or at least a singularity-type-object) there would be no need for this “nothingness” at all. The universe would always have existed; one end of it is merely timeless (or, at least, having only “time-like” properties), perhaps being a “node” to different timelines having different properties. Allowing his audience to appreciate of this would, I’m sure, knock his conjuring powers off-kilter as surely as a James Randi test.
Of course, as you say, we cannot see this state, this object. It may be timeless, it may not. It may be a singularity, it may not. But nobody is suggesting that it is nothing. (Why there is not nothing is a diferent proposition altogether!)
That’s a little how I see. I figure that God, if there is a God, will probably look for the most elegant (and laziest) solution. What better way than to set it up to all roll downhill from an initial point, thus requiring little to no intervention thereafter.
So? You just rejected the God of the Gaps. Now you’re pointing out gaps - at least gaps in our knowledge about the universe. On the face of it you seem to be trying to squeeze God into those somehow. Are you?
So… are you saying that your God exists in an unknowable ‘thing’ (state, area, time, dimension, whatever) outside of the Universe? And being outside of the Universe God is therefore scientifically unknowable? 'cos that would seem to be the ultimate God of the Gaps. What say you Lib?
The scalar potential is really the easiest formulation of the “vacuum energy density”. In Steinhart’s Cyclic model, there is still a “bang” and a “crunch” and the fit to WMAP seems to be workable.
I say that God is ontological necessary and morally perfect, that His most valued aesthetic is goodness, and that His essense is love — the facilitation of goodness. He is supernatural and is God irrespective of the universe. I believe that the universe is amoral, and therefore trivial.
Fair enough, I suppose. But why bring it up then? And why be so short when asked about it? You’re the one who appears, to me at least, to be advancing scientific ignorance in support of the existence of God.
I can just about see how that could be deemed to be an answer to the questions that I asked, but its a stretch.
And - the validity of the ontological argument aside - why does ontological necessity trump physical actuality or at least physical evidence of existence or the lack thereof? And how does amorality imply triviality? And if one is to take the triviality of the natural world as a consequence of one’s spiritual beliefs, then does it not logically follow that one should lead an ascetic lifestyle? After all, any form of material comfort would be, well, trivial.
Consider looking at Craig’s conclusion of the talk I attended. By that point I was just flabbergasted by how many incorrect things he had stated as fact, but his list “proving” the existence of a monotheistic God I didn’t even think could begin to be looked at since his proposition number four isn’t necessarily true by a longshot. Anyway, I’d be interested in seeing what you guys thought of the stuff I didn’t care about.
Lib, I’m more than a bit tired of your constantly waving around the modal ontological proof. It’s a nice piece of symbolic logic finagling, to be sure, but with it, you can “prove” the existence of anything that, according to its properties must exist everywhere if it existed. Anything. Doesn’t that strike you as just the least bit silly?
Not only that, but as for your view of God… The Modal Ontological Proof, even if you take it seriously, just states that God exists, without saying anything about It.
I quickly read through the presentation notes and conclusion, and I have to say that his conclusions don’t by necessity follow any of his own arguments. In other words even if I grant him all of his statements, his conclusions still leave room for heavy doubt. The logical structure he presents in the conclusion is valid but far from sound. I especially think that he presented no convincing evidence to prove statements #1, #3, #6, or #7. Since I am by no means a scientist I made that assesment by giving him the benefit of the doubt on his assertions on physical theory. And if you (Princeton) are correct in your asessment of his mistakes in that realm then I suspect that I would end up rejecting his other conclusions as well. So it seems to me that he is a poor philosopher as well as scientist.
And a quick note on my veiws on God, gaps, and physics, just to offer another Christian perspective (and to show how at least this Christian thinks that Craig is wasting his time). I don’t believe that God exists outside of the universe but rather that the universe exists inside of God’s conciousness. I don’t think that matter is trivial – it is a projection of God’s creative imagination and is important just because of that fact. I don’t believe that any knowledge or lack of knowledge about the physics of the universe necessarily proves anything at all about the nature of God or his motives. Since I believe that all of existence that we can experience is a projection of God’s conciousness (including what we call matter, time, mass, space, etc.) then it follows that there is no discovery in physics (or any other science) that could even come close to offering proof that God doesn’t exist. So likewise I think the tactics of Dr. Craig (trying to prove God with physics) is equally as pointless as trying to disprove God with physics. It would be like two characters in a Shakespearean play arguing the existence of Shakespeare by pointing to the different actions, characters, and dialogues in the play itself (in which they are characters).
There is a little part of most men’s minds that wants to see the gears, and watch the wheels. When you do that, if you do it right, you learn how things work. Then you know something, and for a while, you can feel good about it. But then, you find other gears, and wheels you never noticed.
When it grows up, this turns into science. (Not Science, which is another thing.) Great stuff science. Good for building bridges, space stations, and the like.
But this human exercise has very little to do with God. Trying to imply that your observations, and conjectures about the universe’s gears and wheels is indicative of the nature of God requires mental gymnastics. You must abandon the scientific method, which requires reproducible observations of defined physical circumstances. Then you must also abandon faith in God, which requires that you accept that He is beyond your control. So, you get either bad physics or a God in a box.
Why anyone would want either of these is a mystery to me.
And, by the way, the Big Bang was neither big, nor a bang. (A theory that was named by its detractors.)
Other than everything, there never was nothing, except there can’t even be never. Before ever is just as meaningless as after forever. English is not adequate for discussing the limits of time. We have beginnings, and we expect ends. We like our limits. That doesn’t make them natural law.
Deciding how God created the universe assumes that my mind is able to encompass even what the universe is now. A dubious assumption.
I don’t think either one. I think a created universe is outside of the scope of cosmology as we currently understand it. There is no scientific evidence to suggest one way or the other whether the universe was created by a force that exists outside of the universe. It is the province of religion. The way I understand it, scientifically-speaking, its irrelevant to the question of whether the universe was created, if the universe were created in its present state, or created as a singularity that developed into the present state. Here’s how Hawking put it:
And I’m going to add something to what he says. Since it’s scientifically meaningless to talk about the universe being created before the big bang, and since the concept of cause and effect would quite obviously break down and be rendered meaningless at t=0, then if there was a cause for the big bang, that cause must necessarily exist outside of our universe and its laws. So the cosmological model of an expanding universe, or the “beginning of a train journey”, doesn’t point to a created universe any more than any other model. Unless there is some way for the laws of this universe to be extrapolated into other realms, about which we know nothing. And it seems to me that such would be the wildest of conjecture.
So I guess what bothers me is that even to concede that the existence of the singularity might suggest a created universe is to give the thought more credence than it deserves.
Your inferences do not necessarily constitute my implications. What I said was that the more questions are answered, the more questions arise. That is a comment, not about God, but about the process of discovery. Our dialog is a case in point. The more I answer your questions, the more you are confounded with mystery.
Your questions were so detached and random that I chose to answer the summation question, “What say you, Lib?”. I began my response with “I say that…”. It is incumbent upon you, not me, to suppress whatever preconceptions you might have had and take my answer at face value.
Ontological necessity trumps physical actuality because of the nature of logical implication. A -> A is not biconditional. It would be a logical fallacy (affirmation of the consequent) to draw the implication the other way. Being necessary trumps being actual for the same reason that being a mammal trumps being a whale. All whales are mammals, but all mammals are not necessarily whales.
Quite obviously, if God exists and is concerned with morality, then amorality is trivial.
As would any concern at all about material things. Seeking out deprivation is just as trivial as seeking out comfort. Both are climbing the wrong tree.
You might be surprised to learn that not every comment about ontological necessity has to do with the modal ontological proof. I was asked what I say about God, and one of the things I say is that His existence is necessary. I also say that He is morally perfect, and yet you do not express that you are more than a bit tired of my opinion on that. In all likelihood, you simply are more than a bit tired of me in general, and so if I type the word “ontological”, sirens go off in your head and you feel compelled to express your discomfort despite that every discussion about the existence of anything at all necessarily introduces an ontological issue. Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of existence, so I have no idea why you find the mere mention of the term to be so distressing. Perhaps it is a matter of opportunity for you — Lib types “ontol…” so I must explode. But for me, I do not consider before I type whether I will pass your tests. I use the terms that I believe are appropriate, just as I would in any discussion.
Frankly, I find his (1) and (2) to be contradictory. The universe is nothing more than a probability distribution, so I don’t understand what the big deal is about whether God created it. His concern is morality, and the universe serves His purpose whether He created it or not.
Lib, I’m not just trying to explode at you. You’re a smart guy. But occaisionally, it becomes very difficult for me to believe that you’re playing with a full deck of cards, making sandwiches with a full loaf, etc.
I didn’t explode simply because you used the word “ontological”. I was a bit tired of the modal ontological proof that you use to determine that God is an ontological necessary. And also, sometimes you include a detailed post on it in a thread when it’s completely unecessary.
There was a certain thread on atoms, for example, where a Doper asked if the existence of atoms could actually be proved. Other Dopers provided photographs of atoms. This was pretty much evidence enough. You then included the modal ontological proof. Huh?
But let’s drop the question of using it appropriately for a moment. Could you address my complaints about the modal ontological proof? I’ll quote them, for convenience.
This is absolutely correct from the standpoint that it is no more evidence of a created universe than a model that doesn’t start with a singularity. Some people, however, would be thrilled to allow for the beginning event to be a signal of creation. Do I mind? Not really. Hindus are probably thrilled with a cyclic model. It’s no skin off my back if a person wants to interpret meaning into a natural phenomenon.
For example, there are those who might take the speed of light as a constant to be a holy indicator. If they wish to spin things in such a way, who am I to stop them? If they say it is necessarily a holy indicator, well, then, we’ve got a problem.