An Infinite Past?

[JimL]

No Jim, even in your greater universe you still end up with an infinite regression of causes and effects. Some physical effect caused this universe to rise, but what effect caused that effect? And so on and so on. You can break the chain of cause and effect but then there would be no reason for a specific cause to come about.

It seems to me that the argument you are making is that the first cause, which itself is infinite, has to be separate from and distinct in nature from the first effect which is then the cause of the series of causes and effects which follow from that first effect. Can you tell me why you believe that the first cause need be separate from and distinct in nature from the first effect?
Your argument also seems to exclude the thoughts of an infinite God from this same dilemma of infinite regression that you see for an infinite universe. Do you have a legitimate explanation for that?
It would seem that your only explanation for this line of reasoning would have to do with something about the nature of time, but as I pointed out previously, even an infinite Gods thoughts either take place in time or they are eternal and fixed, and if they exist in time then you can't avoid the same dilemma of infinite regression that you proposed as being a problem for an infinite universe. But then if they, i.e Gods thoughts are eternal and fixed then God himself would be determined by his own nature.
We really still don't understand the nature of time as yet, or which of the 2 alternatives is correct, but, as they say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so if an infinite regress is possible within an eternal and infinite God, then it seems to me only logical that it is just as possible within an infinite and eternal universe.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense, it still requires an infinite regression of causes and effects, even in your multiverse.

Please, give evidence for this assertion, If the greater cosmos is infinite and eternal, there is infinite regression of cause and effects except the formation and death of universes.

[Leonhard]

Your describing attributes of Quantum Mechanics. The quantum world I am referring to is Greater Cosmos from which all possible universes arise and return.

Yes I'm describing attributes of quantum field theory, whenever someone uses the word 'quantum' in the context of physics or cosmology that's what I assume they're talking about. If you're not talking about quantum mechanics in any way, then there's no reason to invoke it by name. Simply use 'Greater Cosmos' or something to that effect. However its clear that you are invoking quantum field theory, because looking at the discussion you're alluding to Sean Caroll's reply to William Lane Craig. However Sean Caroll believes that the universe arose from a primordial quantum vacuum which underwent a decay from one state to another.

Since this is a change, where potentiality is actualized, we're back to square one.

I have no problems with 'Newer ideas are more correct then older ones.' It is of course a problem with those living in the past.

MaxVel was talking about a chronological bias. I don't he or I denies that new ideas can be correct if they're adequately demonstrated, the problem is with an out of hand dismissal of anything that's old, which what he perceives you to be doing.

Since I don't really see argue all that much for what you believe I'm kinda inclined to agree.

First, 'How do you know God is eternal, doesn't change? the only thing I see is that is how you define God. Kind of circular. Isn't it.

Actually it follows from the Five Ways that if God is the First Mover, he cannot himself undergo change. You could then argue 'Alright, lets accept that this First Mover exist, how do you know that its identical with God?" That would follow from other considerations. I'm not defending all of Classical Theology here, that's overkill. This is all about whether or not the past is infinite or not.

Infinite regression can only occur within time from a human perspective, and does not limit the possibility of an Infinite Past.

I think, though he'd word it differently and clarify some terms, that Aquinas would agree with you that's its possible in principle. That's something I think he was wrong about.

The problem with Aquinas is his reliance on Aristotle's thinking in terms of Infinities.

Care to give an example?

[Leonhard]

Thats a problem, because then you could make the same argument about God or the Cosmos both of which could be said to show both actuality/existence and potentiality/creation neither of which could be argued any more the one than the other to have been caused.

If we have a distinction of potentiality and actuality, then there has to be an ultimate cause for why anything currently exists. This cause itself must be pure actuality, otherwise it itself would need to be actualized by something else. Now its left as an exercise to work out some of the properties of this cause that allows us to identify it with God, however this is one of the approaches of Classical Theology. So in God there's no potentiality whatsoever, he's perfectly simple and unchanging. And note that this follows as a conclusion, not as assertion.

But therein lies the problem. The premise that it is possible for energy/matter to not exist is not known to be true with high confidence. At least not as far as I am aware of.

It would follow necessarily from a distinction of potentiality and actuality. Since all matter shows both aspects, it needs another cause for why it exists. Again the real question is why you should believe in this distinction, but I think that's for another thread. I think you can see how this reasoning works out, even if you disagree with the basic premise.

A change is a change, and a force is a force no less so for a thought than for a physical change, so the problem of infinite regression isn't solved by the God hypothesis. Besides, if either the universe or God is infinite, what is the problem with infinite regression? Was there a certain point within infinity when God decided to create the universe? Did he have infinite many thoughts previous to that thought?

This sounds confused to me. First of all God isn't introduced here as a hypothesis, since we're not proposing testable predictions that we can examine. We're deducing his existence based upon empirical information. Seer is doing it by making an argument for a finite past and an ultimate cause. I jumped in to defend some of the premises from Aquinas Third Way, which is where seer is drawing his logic from, and to temper its conclusion. So this is definitely a philosophical enterprise, not a scientific one.

Second you need to make distinctions in the word infinite. God doesn't have any size, and since He's unchanging He's completely outside of any notion of time, however when we say that 'the universe is infinite' we tend to mean that its either infinite in size or in the past. When we say that God is infinite this implies that He's unlimited. For instance He's omnipresent in that there's no place in the world inaccessible to Him, omniscient in that He knows all truthes, etc... So you're comparing apples to oranges if you're talking about God being infinite and the universe being infinite.

Thirdly, time as such is only something that applies properly to material objects that undergo some form of mutual change. That's the objective part of time, we see things moving together, and then we notice a change which is the subjective part that we experience as a 'present moment'. This mutualness and togetherness of the change is what makes clocks useful, we can build clocks that track change albiet with various General Relativistic caveats. In one place we can say 'Ah so many units of ticks have gone by here, and therefore as many ticks have gone by somewhere else'. Which is very useful. However without physical objects undergoing mutual and synchronous changes like that, we don't really have time. God is utterly unchanging, so the notion doesn't apply to Him. So before he made the world there wasn't any time.

So to say that he waited around for an eternity and then decided to make the world isn't what's believed. At least not in scholastic philosophy.

[Leonhard]

And be honest Shuny - what did Carroll say - that none of them worked, or could be demonstrated - not even his.

As far as I can remember of the debate this is partially true. However I think Carroll argued contra Craig that multiverse models weren't completely inconceivable. I don't think Craig does argue something so strongly, merely that there are no contenders, and the rest of the proposals rely on dubious assumptions or hyper-finetuning. In fact Carroll went further and said that he could easily come up with a number of possible models. In the end it comes down to Carroll's word against Craigs. Carroll didn't specifically argue his models so it doesn't constitute a strong point, but a mere opinion.

Multiverses are fairly controversial in the world of cosmology.

[shunyadragon]

As far as I can remember of the debate this is partially true. However I think Carroll argued contra Craig that multiverse models weren't completely inconceivable. I don't think Craig does argue something so strongly, merely that there are no contenders, and the rest of the proposals rely on dubious assumptions or hyper-finetuning. In fact Carroll went further and said that he could easily come up with a number of possible models. In the end it comes down to Carroll's word against Craigs. Carroll didn't specifically argue his models so it doesn't constitute a strong point, but a mere opinion.

Again, he has referred to a number of models obviously not all his own. These models in no way reflect individual 'opinion.' Carroll argued more that Multiverse models were indeed possible. HE repeatedly demonstrated that Craig misrepresented and misquoted physicists and cosmologists as supporting a finite greater cosmos. The concept of the beginning of our universe is accepted by most scientists, but virtually none [maybe a scarce few] advocate that this represents the absolute beginning of everything.

His main thrust of his argument reflected the dominant consensus of all physicists and cosmologists regardless of religious belief. Methodological Naturalism is the dominant view, and answers to Theological questions concerning the existence of God(s) are not answerable in Science. He argued for Naturalism. At no time did he refer to Metaphysical Naturalism.

Multiverses are fairly controversial in the world of cosmology.

I disagree that the models of Multiverse are at all controversial among physicists. In fact I will go as far as to say by far most physicists and cosmologists support that some kind of multiverse model, or possible several related models, will eventually provide the best explanation.

Seer tends to stress Carroll's atheism as a bias in his presentation of the scientific view of the universe, multiverse and the nature of the greater cosmos. The problem with this is Carroll's presentation reflects the view of the dominant consensus of science regardless of the religious beliefs of individuals

[Leonhard]

Again, he has referred to a number of models obviously not all his own. These models in no way reflect individual 'opinion.' Carroll argued more that Multiverse models were indeed possible.

Lets be fair, Craig doensn't disagree with this. However arguing that something is merely possible isn't enough to make Carroll's case that a multiverse is likely.

HE repeatedly demonstrated that Craig misrepresented and misquoted physicists and cosmologists as supporting a finite greater cosmos.

Its debatable whether he succeeded but I won't do that here.

The concept of the beginning of our universe is accepted by most scientists, but virtually none [maybe a scarce few] advocate that this represents the absolute beginning of everything.

That's a very strong claim shunya, got a statistics or a literature review on it?

His main thrust of his argument reflected the dominant consensus of all physicists and cosmologists regardless of religious belief.

The only argument he ever made, other than some stulting and half-done arguments from evil, various random things flung at Craig and non sequitors was that the notion of God was ill-defined. He argued that God was ill defined because the belief in God didn't lead to scientifically testable predictions. However since God isn't proposed as a scientific hypothesis, this misses the boat, and Craig did the gracious thing of ignoring this since it had nothing to do with the topic they were debating. Namely whether Science could be used to support premises for philosophical arguments about God.

Methodological Naturalism is the dominant view, and answers to Theological questions concerning the existence of God(s) are not answerable in Science.

But would agree that Science can be used to (in principle) support premises used in philosophical arguments for God?

Seer tends to stress Carroll's atheism as a bias in his presentation of the scientific view of the universe, multiverse and the nature of the greater cosmos.

Whether Carroll is biased isn't interesting to me. That would only explain why he's motivated to holding certain beliefs. I'm interested in why he holds them. Particularly why he believes the universe is infinite. He made one, fairly bad, argument from quantum mechancis but that was about it.

[shunyadragon]

Lets be fair, Craig doensn't disagree with this. However arguing that something is merely possible isn't enough to make Carroll's case that a multiverse is likely.

This definitely does not represent anything close to Craig's position. He argued that the best interpretation present evidence and theory of physics and cosmology is that the universe and greater Cosmos is finite, which was shreaded by a competent scientist in the field. Craig has no competence in the field of physics and cosmology.

Its debatable whether he succeeded but I won't do that here.

He succeeded with references. I listened to it again last night.

That's a very strong claim shunya, got a statistics or a literature review on it?

Not a strong claim at all. I may cite some articles, as there are many and at least 17 models that apply to multiverse greater cosmos. It would rarer if you could cite physicists and cosmologists who deny that the most probable scenario is the existence of an infinite eternal multiverse cosmos. In a previous thread in the old tweb I gave respectable list of physicists and cosmologists who support one or more multiverse models as the most likely scenario of the cosmos.

It would be interesting to compare lists!!! Actually my list will include the naysayers and the middle grounders.

The only argument he ever made, other than some stulting and half-done arguments from evil, various random things flung at Craig and non sequitors was that the notion of God was ill-defined. He argued that God was ill defined because the belief in God didn't lead to scientifically testable predictions. However since God isn't proposed as a scientific hypothesis, this misses the boat, and Craig did the gracious thing of ignoring this since it had nothing to do with the topic they were debating. Namely whether Science could be used to support premises for philosophical arguments about God.

This is confusing and you need citations from Carroll to support it. Oh yes! It had a great deal to do with the topic. It is important to demonstrate that the Methodological Naturalist scientific methods of physics and cosmology can ONLY be used to apply the Nature of our Physical arguments and NOT theological questions concerning the existence of God and such.

But would agree that Science can be used to (in principle) support premises used in philosophical arguments for God?

Absolutely no. Any effort to do this would represent a futile delusion, and little more then a circular argument as the attempts of the Discovery Institutes efforts to develop a falsifiable theory or hypothesis fro intelligent design.

Whether Carroll is biased isn't interesting to me. That would only explain why he's motivated to holding certain beliefs. I'm interested in why he holds them. Particularly why he believes the universe is infinite. He made one, fairly bad, argument from quantum mechancis but that was about it.

There is simply no justifiable reason to consider it finite, if one has a reasonable background in physics and cosmology. He cited Goth, and the theory of the 'No boundary Cosmos' by Hawkins and Hartie.

[seer]

There is simply no justifiable reason to consider it finite, if one has a reasonable background in physics and cosmology. He cited Goth, and the theory of the 'No boundary Cosmos' by Hawkins and Hartie.

There you go again Shuny, there is zero evidence that anything but this present finite cosmos exists.

[shunyadragon]

There you go again Shuny, there is zero evidence that anything but this present finite cosmos exists.

From the perspective you describe it cannot be concluded either way.

[JimL]

If we have a distinction of potentiality and actuality, then there has to be an ultimate cause for why anything currently exists. This cause itself must be pure actuality, otherwise it itself would need to be actualized by something else. Now its left as an exercise to work out some of the properties of this cause that allows us to identify it with God, however this is one of the approaches of Classical Theology. So in God there's no potentiality whatsoever, he's perfectly simple and unchanging. And note that this follows as a conclusion, not as assertion.

First off whence the conclusion that there should be a distinction of potentiality and actuality in the nature of the universe? If the nature of God is pure actuality with no potentiality then how do you explain creation?

It would follow necessarily from a distinction of potentiality and actuality. Since all matter shows both aspects, it needs another cause for why it exists. Again the real question is why you should believe in this distinction, but I think that's for another thread. I think you can see how this reasoning works out, even if you disagree with the basic premise.

See above.

This sounds confused to me. First of all God isn't introduced here as a hypothesis, since we're not proposing testable predictions that we can examine. We're deducing his existence based upon empirical information. Seer is doing it by making an argument for a finite past and an ultimate cause. I jumped in to defend some of the premises from Aquinas Third Way, which is where seer is drawing his logic from, and to temper its conclusion. So this is definitely a philosophical enterprise, not a scientific one.

Seer may not be proposing testable predictions that we can examine, but creation is seer's conclusion here, so I think that God is introduced here as a hypothesis.

Second you need to make distinctions in the word infinite. God doesn't have any size, and since He's unchanging He's completely outside of any notion of time, however when we say that 'the universe is infinite' we tend to mean that its either infinite in size or in the past. When we say that God is infinite this implies that He's unlimited. For instance He's omnipresent in that there's no place in the world inaccessible to Him, omniscient in that He knows all truthes, etc... So you're comparing apples to oranges if you're talking about God being infinite and the universe being infinite.

Seems as though you are defining terms to your own advantage here Leonard. If God has no size, if he is not infinite, then how can he be everywhere, i.e. how can he be omnipresent? More to the point, if he has no size, how could he be anywhere?

Thirdly, time as such is only something that applies properly to material objects that undergo some form of mutual change. That's the objective part of time, we see things moving together, and then we notice a change which is the subjective part that we experience as a 'present moment'. This mutualness and togetherness of the change is what makes clocks useful, we can build clocks that track change albiet with various General Relativistic caveats. In one place we can say 'Ah so many units of ticks have gone by here, and therefore as many ticks have gone by somewhere else'. Which is very useful. However without physical objects undergoing mutual and synchronous changes like that, we don't really have time. God is utterly unchanging, so the notion doesn't apply to Him. So before he made the world there wasn't any time.

Well, I realize that that is the assertion, but the problem with that argument, the way I see it, is that God is said to think, to create, and to observe the flow of time, not to mention living within it for a spell, all of which contradict the notion of God being utterly unchanging. Time btw, in the sense of ticking clocks and change, may be an illusion as far as the nature of the universe goes as well.

So to say that he waited around for an eternity and then decided to make the world isn't what's believed. At least not in scholastic philosophy.

Which really doesn't make sense. The universe, our universe, has existed 14 billion years. Was there no before our universe? If not then God did not exist before our Universe existed, ergo he could not have created it. But I would like to hear your explanation for that.

[JimL]

There you go again Shuny, there is zero evidence that anything but this present finite cosmos exists.

If you reject the evidence of the natural world, then yes, just like the notion of creation, there is no empirical evidence of an eternally existing universe. But empirical evidence does show us that all things are born of a common substance and that no thing comes from nothing. So you have two choices, the universe is itself eternal, all things merely being changes within it, or it came into existence from out of nothing.

[Tassman]

There you go again Shuny, there is zero evidence that anything but this present finite cosmos exists.

Not so and to say otherwise is simply a denial of the available information.

Our universe is increasingly understood by cosmologists to be just one of an infinite number that make up a "multiverse; this notion is supported by solid physics and several models have been arrived at by physicists independently of each other. Hence, some form of multiverse is the most probable explanation of how the cosmos functions.

[seer]

Our universe is increasingly understood by cosmologists to be just one of an infinite number that make up a "multiverse; this notion is supported by solid physics and several models have been arrived at by physicists independently of each other. Hence, some form of multiverse is the most probable explanation of how the cosmos functions.

This is just false Tass, where is the consensus? And there is no "evidence" for such an assertion, just ideas on paper. What physical qualities of this universe points to a multiverse being the "most probable explanation." More wishful thinking Tass...

[seer]

If you reject the evidence of the natural world, then yes, just like the notion of creation, there is no empirical evidence of an eternally existing universe. But empirical evidence does show us that all things are born of a common substance and that no thing comes from nothing. So you have two choices, the universe is itself eternal, all things merely being changes within it, or it came into existence from out of nothing.

God is not nothing Jim. And you still would have the problem of the infinite regression of physical causes and effects, which as my example of moving backwards in time shows is impossible.