After further consideration of the argument, I remembered the perspective which caused me to first change from strongly agreeing to disagreeing with this most popular of apologists tools.
The cosmological argument collapses on itself because it makes an assertion which rends the subject material categorically unknowable.
Consider the following:
If God created the universe from nothing, then he must have broken the laws of physics. (conservation of mass for example- going from no mass to all the mass in the universe)
If the laws of physics were broken at any point in history, we would be entirely incapable of looking at, understanding, or commenting on what was going on. Logic does not apply when the laws of physics are broken.
If the universe began the way apologists who use the cosmological argument think it did, then that beginning happened in such a way that it is untestable and incomparable to anything we know.
Conclusion: If the universe 'began' at some point, then it must have happened in such a way that the laws of physics as we know them were broken, and so no comparison can be made with that 'beginning' and what we know of how the universe works now.
We should not make confident assertions about things we don't (or cannot) understand.
Science (physics) has developed its laws based on observations. These observations enable us to make descriptions of reality, and these descriptions if tested enough, can become "law". A "law" is just an observation or set of observations that have never been observed to be any other way---in other words have never been falsified. Physics makes no assertion that these laws "are always true" just that they have always been true when they've been tested.
ReplyDeleteWhen we use "laws" we employ a basic assumption that they are "always true" merely because if we didn't, the law would have no use for us. Science cannot and never will make an assertion that these laws are eternal, immutable, or entirely unfalsifiable, and certainly cannot make a certain assertion that these laws have always existed forever as they exist today.
So first, let me correct your idea that these laws are somehow "eternal" and "perfect". They have simply never been falsified by any man and by that facet we employ them to help us describe reality, not explain it.
Second, your argument assumes a creator subject to the rules of the universe as we know them. Most every cosmological argument I've ever heard assumes the opposite. Your argument can only be true then if you accept the presupposition that nothing is greater than scientific law and that is the only Truth there is, and nothing, even those things we haven't discovered yet, is above what is currently known.
I am a research scientist and neither I nor any other scientist I have ever met would be willing to put that much faith into science. Why? because every good scientist recognizes how big the gap is between how much there is to know and to be known and how much we can ever possibly know. Therefore such strong assertions are outside of both our realm of ability to understand and therefore our ability to assert...and wouldn't make any logical sense to put all of our "faith" in. We merely "accept" what we think we know, with the understanding that our perspective may someday be utterly shaken by some newly-found truth...
Thank you for your comment!
ReplyDeleteThe things you have said in response to my post are causing me to think that I may have done a poor job communicating my ideas.
In response to what you said,
"So first, let me correct your idea that these laws are somehow "eternal" and "perfect". They have simply never been falsified by any man and by that facet we employ them to help us describe reality, not explain it."
I shall say the following:
I do not think that the laws of physics are eternal and perfect. I totally agree in your statement that they currently have not been falsified and that we employ them to help us describe reality. What did I say that gave you the impression that I thought otherwise?
See next comment for continued respons.
Aha!
ReplyDeleteI re-read my post in light of what you said and see where our communication error is!
When I said "If God created the universe from nothing, then he must have broken the laws of physics" I didn't mean it as a bad thing!
I totally think God can break the laws of physics. In fact, I am assuming that he does so!
But in the scenario that he did break those laws, it would also be a scenario in which we could not extend any form of inquiry.
So the problem does not come from God breaking the laws (if he exists he made them and controls them). The problem comes from the fact that if the universe were to be created in such a way, God creating it would not be the best explanation. The best explanation would "we cannot comment on this phenomena because it is outside our relm of knowledge."
Thank you again for posting, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteI will update the article and try to make it less confusing.
At the singularity, the laws of physics (as we know them) DO break down and cease to function. Relativity doesn't work on the quantum level. So, ANYTHING could have happened, but it would have been outside of time and space, since neither existed until the big bang.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your input, Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment entirely.
Do you have any evidence, authors, or online resources that you could direct this blog towards to learn more about the claims you made?