An Infinite Past?

[Leonhard]

First off whence the conclusion that there should be a distinction of potentiality and actuality in the nature of the universe?

I still think that's a big enough question for another thread, I might open one about it.

It's a much more interesting question than whether the universe is infinitely old. Shortly some of the motivating reasons why you want to introduce this distinction is that it explains how the world can be many and one: Why is it possible for there to be hundreds of objects who aren't identical, which are all somehow chairs? More importantly its needed in order to explain why its possible for things to change at all, without ending up arguing that change is an illusion ala Parmenides.

The latter has actually come into vogue again by thinking of space-time as one solid block and particles as mere trajectories through it. Nothing really changes.

If the nature of God is pure actuality with no potentiality then how do you explain creation?

I think see the problem you have. If the quantum vacuum could spawn the universe, but must be composed of actuality and potentiality, then why is God exempt?

The difference is that quantum vacuum does undergo change. In string theory there's metastabile vacuums that over time might drop down into a more stable state with new physical parameters. This causes an inflation event, and with this change is a huge release of energy which repopulates the empty space with particles and you have a new universe. So the quantum vacuum, we'd say, has the potential for undergoing this kind of change.

However since the universe wasn't made out of God, God didn't undergo any change when He made it. There's nothing wrong with pure actuality, actualising something else. In our case God made matter with all the potentials possible.

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.

So if its not testable, but a philosophical deduction, how can it then be a hypothesis?

Seems as though you are defining terms to your own advantage here

I'm using the definitions as they've originally been used in scholastic philosophy. Even if I wasn't, all you really then mean is that I ought to exchange the word 'infinite' with 'unlimited' or something like that. Its not really interesting to quibble about terminology.

If God has no size

No Christian theist has ever postulated that the divine nature has a size.

if he is not infinite, then how can he be everywhere, i.e. how can he be omnipresent?

The same way a point, even if doesn't have any width, or height, can be the center of a circle. There's no place anywhere which is inaccessible to God, or for which it is harder for him to reach.

I realize that this 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.

I think all of these things could be true by analogy, but by analogy. Its closer to the truth to say that God changed his mind, than any other set of words we can use.

However God becoming incarnate didn't change his nature. We only have one nature in us, our human nature. However there's nothing inconsistent with conceiving of a person who has two different natures at the same time. In Jesus both a divine nature existed alongside with a human nature. That's why we say he's fully man and fully God.

The human nature of Jesus could undergo change, he was conceived, was born, learned to walk and talk, grew in wisdom and favour with God, walked around, preached, ate, drank, prayed and slept, suffered, died and was resurrected. However his divine nature didn't undergo any changes during this.

This is what's believed, and if there's any specific problem with it you need to point it out.

The universe, our universe, has existed 14 billion years. Was there no [time] before our universe?

As far as I see it there isn't.

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.

You can distinguish between two ways of something before another causally. Temporally prior and logically prior. Temporal orderings depends on a lot of things, with theory of relativity it can depend on distance and the relative velocity of moving frames. Logical ordering never changes, and is independent of time. Basically temporal ordering is just the act of sorting events that occur by what time they occurred at. Logical ordering is when we sort events depending on whether one is causally prior the other (in relativity this occur when they're outside each others lightcones).

A hand is holding up a ball, the hand is logically prior to the ball not falling to the floor, since its the cause. A flagpole casts a shadow on the ground, and the flagpole is the cause of the shadow, the shadow isn't the cause of the flagpole.

In time God appears as creating the universe simultaneously with the universe beginning to exist. However he is logically prior in the sense that God is the cause of the universe rather than vice versa.

If God is a substance that has nothing in common with the substance of the universe, then the universe came from nothing whether created or not.

Agreed.

As for your second point, as I keep pointing out and you keep failing to reply to, you have the same problem with infinite regression with respect to God and creation.

Why does God require a cause?

[Leonhard]

I think my ultimate complaint is not with the logic that leads to this conclusion but with the claimed nature of that pure actuality. I feel pretty confident that one could grant that the pure actuality exists as stated without ever being able to approach 'God' as the form of that actuality. It's the same thing with the KCA. I don't think the KCA works, but even if granted I don't think it accomplishes anything meaningful from an apologetics standpoint.

Mind, I put God in scare quotes for a reason. I grant that one could simply call pure actuality "God" if one chose, but I contend that the issue isn't the name of pure actuality but with the additional attributes it's supposed to have.

I know where you're coming from, believe me I do. However do you agree that we can't do the entire project of Classical Theology in a short argument? Lets just stick to one aspect at a time.

I'm curious, do you believe that some sort of pure actuality exists?

[shunyadragon]

Exactly, Craig argues that the universe having an absolute beginning is better supported by the current evidence than the idea that there's a past-infinite cosmological expansion, or some cyclical universe.

Current science considers it by far most likely that our particular had a beginning, and no there is no consideration of a past cosmological expansion. Where did you get this silly notion????? Cyclical universe are basically no longer considered viable. All this does not address the issue. The answer is an emphatic no when it comes to whether the scientific evidence favors the beginning of our universe as the absolute beginning of everything. At the very best you can argue that that it is an open question as to whether the greater cosmos in some way began with the beginning of our universe, or the greater cosmos existed infinitely and eternally with our universe within this greater cosmos.

As I told Seer, you have to deal with the evidence that our universe began as a singularity, and not something from nothing, and; 'What was the nature of the existence that this singularity existed in?

However Craig has never argued that its impossible for the universe to fail to have a beginning qua the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem or the Hawking-Penrose theorems. Merely that, with Vilenkin, that you'd have to introduce an infinitely fine-tuned universe to avoid the conclusion. Which is unacceptable in physics.

Your scientific understanding of 'fine tuning' is clouded by your theistic view of fine tuning. They have nothing in common. It is not a question as to whether Craig considers if impossible nor impossible. The serious question is Craig's lack of competence in Physics and Cosmology shrouded in his overwhelming theist bias that the beginning of our universe represents an absolute beginning of everything.

If he referred to anything he referred to his own model, he admitted he had no evidence for any of them, or that any of them could solve the substantial conceptual problems plaguing multiverse models. He merely expressed his confidence that they would ultimately be solved.

This is a very fundamental misrepresentation of what Carroll said. You need to cite Carroll specifically before making such statements.

The question is how he knows that, and since he never actually argued that point then ultimately he's arguing in a circle. "Science will ultimately demonstrate that the universe is past-infinite because the universe is actually past-infinite."

This is terribly incomplete as far as anything Carroll said. Please don't make such statements unless you can cite Carroll completely and accurately. As I said I listened carefully to the whole debate the other night, and this is not accurate. The question from the science perspective is most definitely NOT 'How does he know that?'

Where did I deny that there exists models like that?

It was most definitely not a question of you denying that such models exist like that. The problem is 'the strength of the claim.' There are definitively at least 17 models that have been developed at major universities by well known cosmologists, and the view that multiverses is not controversial, it is the view held by far most cosmologists. The following list represents the current consencous of physics and cosmology. I may address this issue in more detail, but among the naysayers are those that have a theistic bias.

Supporters of the Multiverse

David H. Bailey - mathametician
Sean Carroll
Paul Dirac
Hugh Everett III
Brian Greene
Alan Guth
Stephen Hawking
Thomas Hertog
Gerard 't Hooft
Laura Mersini Houghton
James Hartle
Andrei Linde
Lawrence Krauss
Juan Maldacena
Joseph Polchinski
Prof. Max Tegmark
Steven Weinberg

Opponents

Paul Davies
George Ellis
David Gross
Paul Steinhardt,

Since there's no evidence, this can't be a denial, otherwise you're engaging in question begging behavior.

Incomplete consideration of the evidence. Begging the question is an issue of those that that claim a theistic position that presupposes the existence of God, and in someway concludes that a lack of evidence is justification for a conclusion the our physical existence is finite, therefore God exists as the creator. The bottom line is based on any possible interpretation of the evidence this fails.

Okay, why is that?

Simply, because that is the nature of Methodological Naturalism. As the Discovery Institute and others are finding out concerning the problems with 'Intelligent Design', you can only falsify theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence. To justify Craig's arguments, you would have to come up with falsifiable theories and hypothesis concerning the argument that our physical existence is finite, therefore it is most likely Created by A God or God(s). Sorry, this simply is a delusion of grand proportions.

What's circular about it?

Presuppositions of the existence of God and old ancient misguided views of infinities (Aquinas and Aristotle) are used to selectively justify an argument that our physical existence is finite, therefore the only viable conclusion is that our existence is finite therefore the only viable conclusion is that God exists as the creator.

So how would you get around those two theorems and keeping in line with the principle of mediocrity 'our universe is nothing special', since the only way around those two theorems is to construct infinitely special universe set up in just the right way that they avoid the problems of Borde-Guth-Vilenkens theorem.

In the present view of science there is no argument that our universe is something special. 'Fine tuning' in the theistic sense is not an issue in science. Our universe simply exists as it is. It may be special, then again it may be one of billions of universes and not necessarily anything special. Again the theistic view of 'fine tuning' is not the same as the scientific consideration of the concept. Theis issue does not represent a problem for the 'Borde-Guth-Vilenkin thermo. As Carroll cited Guthe specifically when asked. He said he did not know, but the greater universe (Greater Cosmic existence) was likely eternal and infinite.

[Leonhard]

Leonhard, I thought that from nothing, nothing comes(ex nihilo nihil fit)?

Yup!

Where would the material come from, if not generated from God's own being?

Ah, but then you're confusing what's being said. If nothing existed at all, not even God, then nothing could happen. However with God existing God has the power to create matter out of nothing. He has the causal power to do this. It takes an infinite amount of power.

Think about it, God has to create every single possibility possible. Everything could be and might have been. In one single act. That's what he did when he created the universe.

However God didn't do this by actualising a potential. Usually when something is made its by us taking something with the potential to be something else. Say a stone block desiring to make a statue, and then we apply (successfully or not depending on skill) the art of statue making to make it. And in the end we'll have likely have a statue of some sort.

However when God created the world he didn't fashion the world out of something else. He simple made it. He's the only being capable of doing this.

So in some sense you're right that the universe is generated from God's being, namely simple be Him being its cause, however he didn't take a lump of himself and fashioned the world from it.

And my position wouldn't be Pantheism but a form of Panentheism.

How would God be transcendently above the world then? It also has as a consequence that you'll have to accept that God undergoes change, and therefore has potentiality and actuality. Since this would be true, something would have to be the cause of God. However God doesn't have a cause; contradiction: ergo panentheism is false.

[shunyadragon]

Like what?

Like there will always be something, anything before that. That is the fundamental basic definition of any 'infinity.' You cannot logically justify a 'finite' using 'infinities.'

[shunyadragon]

I don't think Smolin, Guth, Vilenkin or any of the others have ever argued that the universe is infinite, that's a bit too much for physicists to argue. I remember seeing a lower bound given inflation that the universe might possible be 10^30 times larger than the visible universe, but that's still as far from infinite as the number 1 is.

Of course they did not. They argued that the greater cosmos was most likely infinite and eternal, as Carroll cited Guthe and Hawkings 'No boundary Cosmos.

The discussion isn't about inflation cosmology which is pretty well attested, even without the latest data coming about polarisation of the cosmological background radiation, we already had several independent lines of evidence for it: lack of magnetic monopoles, flat spacetime, distribution of the microwave background. And a typical consequence of most inflation models is that there's a lot of little space time bubbles floating around.

The question is not the specific nature of our universe.

The problem unfortunately is that its unlikely that this process could run infinitely into the past, at least not without introducing specially constructed spacetimes. This is not something cosmologists accept, its the accepted approach so far to assume that there won't appear to be anything special to the way the universe is arranged. Its a typical distribution.

Contemporary Physics and Cosmology does not propose that this process could run infinitely in the past. The process involves the individual history of every possible universe past, present and future within the greater cosmos. The actual potential range of possible universes, and their nature and constants is unknown. The possible range of constants and properties may be very limited, or their constants and properties may vary greatly.

[seer]

Like there will always be something, anything before that. That is the fundamental basic definition of any 'infinity.' You cannot logically justify a 'finite' using 'infinities.'

Ok, you believe in that there was infinite number of past physical events to get to this present universe - correct? So what existed before that?

[Carrikature]

I know where you're coming from, believe me I do. However do you agree that we can't do the entire project of Classical Theology in a short argument? Lets just stick to one aspect at a time.

I'm curious, do you believe that some sort of pure actuality exists?

I agree that we can't do the entire project in a short argument, and I'd willingly say it might be an unending argument . However, I don't find it realistically possible to stick to a single aspect as they are inherently interrelated. Even if it were possible to list all the axioms a person had, I'm not convinced it'd be possible to assess each one individually. I have no problem trying to stick to a single aspect, I just think it's impossible.

In all honesty, potentiality/actuality is not a line of reasoning I've spent much time on. I don't think I have a specific belief on the existence of pure actuality. It's more accurate to say that I don't believe it's possible to show if one exists or not. Even if it were (and I'm willing to grant it is for the sake of argument), I don't see what good it does you.

[Leonhard]

You keep making a mistake Shunya, I am not denying the possibility of multiverses turning out to be true. Its a plausible conclusion from inflationary models of cosmology. However even if you accept a multiverse, it does not follow that the universe is infinitely old. That's the only contention I have.

Your posts also tend towards complete fragmentation, so this is the last post where I try to answer everything you say. Its getting too long and ugly.

Current science considers it by far most likely that our particular had a beginning,

They seem to be far more hesitant in my opinion. They're proposing models, and some consider them likely, but no one considers any of them well supported by the evidence. All of them are still subject to various problems, or require problematic premises. The Fecund Universe model from Smolin, beyond conceptual problems, has the problem of him assuming that information is lost during blackhole formation. Same with Penrose.

and no there is no consideration of a past cosmological expansion. Where did you get this silly notion?????

One question mark at a time please. Its called inflation btw, and unlike multiverse models, this is a well supported theory.

Cyclical universe are basically no longer considered viable.

It seems we agree on something.

The answer is an emphatic no when it comes to whether the scientific evidence favors the beginning of our universe as the absolute beginning of everything. At the very best you can argue that that it is an open question as to whether the greater cosmos in some way began with the beginning of our universe, or the greater cosmos existed infinitely and eternally with our universe within this greater cosmos.

I can do more, but that requires actually examining the multiverse models one by one and seeing if any of them are satisfying, or if they're showing tangible progress in solving their paradoxes and conceptual problems. So far I'm not impressed.

As I told Seer, you have to deal with the evidence that our universe began as a singularity, and not something from nothing, and; 'What was the nature of the existence that this singularity existed in?

I am, we can start to argue cosmology once you feel ready for it Shunya. Unlike you I have an actual background in physics, I didn't graduate from the Campus of Popular Science.

Your scientific understanding of 'fine tuning' is clouded by your theistic view of fine tuning. They have nothing in common. It is not a question as to whether Craig considers if impossible nor impossible. The serious question is Craig's lack of competence in Physics and Cosmology shrouded in his overwhelming theist bias that the beginning of our universe represents an absolute beginning of everything.

Ad hominem fallacy.

This is a very fundamental misrepresentation of what Carroll said. You need to cite Carroll specifically before making such statements.

It would be pretty easy for you cite something in refusal of what I say.

This is terribly incomplete as far as anything Carroll said. Please don't make such statements unless you can cite Carroll completely and accurately.

Then tell me when he rolled out the evidence for past-infinite multiverses to be real, if you can't, then why should I prove that he didn't say anything like that? You're the one making the claim.

It was most definitely not a question of you denying that such models exist like that.

I don't deny that such models exist. Currently they're all underwhelming.

There are 17 definitively at least 17 models that have been developed at major universities by well known cosmologists, and the view that multiverses is not controversial, it is the view held by far most cosmologists. The following list represents the current consencous of physics and cosmology. I may address this issue in more detail, but among the naysayers are those that have a theistic bias.

No this is a cherry picked list, and none of these authors would say that the scientific evidence is in favour of their models being correct.

Begging the question is an issue of those that that claim a theistic position that presupposes the existence of God, and in someway concludes that a lack of evidence is justification for a conclusion the our physical existence is finite, therefore God exists as the creator. The bottom line is based on any possible interpretation of the evidence this fails.

So where did I beg the question? I know what the fallacy is, and it can apply to far more than merely theists. If you saw me making this mistake point it out and I'll listen to you. I'm an honest person and I don't lie, if you caught me in the act I'll admit it.

Presuppositions of the existence of God

Where have I presupposed God's existence?

and old ancient misguided views of infinities (Aquinas and Aristotle)

What's circular about those?

In the present view of science there is no argument that our universe is something special.

That's exactly right Shunya, and that actually creates a problem for you if you want to get around the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. Because in order to avoid its conclusion you'll have to accept the universe is extremely special.

Again the theistic view of 'fine tuning' is not the same as the scientific consideration of the concept.

I used the scientific term. When cosmologists and physicists encounter fine-tuning they assume that their models are incomplete. There's something that explains this happenstance even if we don't know what it is. So you're back to the same problem you're trying to go the route of the infinitely old multiverse.

As Carroll cited Guthe specifically when asked. He said he did not know, but the greater universe (Greater Cosmic existence) was likely eternal and infinite.

That's Guth's solution, it assumes some sort of quantum vacuum, which has its own problems. I won't argue that though as its getting late. I've been gracious to you Shunya, there's no reason to keep up this conversation with you if you start accusing me of things, but won't answer exactly what I did wrong.

[shunyadragon]

Ok, you believe in that there was infinite number of past physical events to get to this present universe - correct? So what existed before that?

More of the same infinitely. as the very fundamental definition of 'infinity' states, 'There will always be 'something or anything beyond which you can define or imagine. In Chapter 1 page 1of Rudy Rucker's Infinity and the Mind: "Endlessness is, after all, a principle component of one's concept of infinity. Other notions associated with infinity are indefiniteness and inconceivability."

The Greek apeiran is translated as 'unbounded' or absence of limit. As I said before, Lucretius had it right in the 1st century BC concerning the nature of our physical existence.

If you can count anything back from the present whether the artificial notion of human units of time or objects in the past (universes?) there will always be something or anything beyond anything you could imagine.

[Carrikature]

Ok, fine, but we are both in the realm of opinion. I gave my opinion, you gave yours. What else is there at this point?

I, like you, am using intuition. I can imagine something going out of existence, I can't imagine something coming from nothing. Can you?

No, I can't imagine something coming from nothing. Nor can I imagine something going out of existence. Is the difference to you solely what you can or can't imagine?

I guess if you think it is possible for something to pop into existence out of nothing then nothing would be logically impossible in your mind. So we are back to dueling opinions...

This isn't what I think.

Maybe it helps to put it another way. Given:

{existence} {non-existence}

Both of these are sets. You are claiming that something can go from one to the other but never the reverse. I am claiming that the second set is not a set, and that movement into or out of the set of existence is impossible. Does that make more sense?

I think as long as you have physical cause and effect you have time. It is after all successive events are what marks time. In this case there would be no break in the chain, one event leads to another, finally to this present universe.

There's a difference between temporally prior and logically prior, as Leonhard mentions. You're basically arguing that all causality is temporal. Is that correct?

[seer]

Is the difference to you solely what you can or can't imagine?

Of course, what else is there at this point?

Both of these are sets. You are claiming that something can go from one to the other but never the reverse. I am claiming that the second set is not a set, and that movement into or out of the set of existence is impossible. Does that make more sense?

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but it still rests solely on opinion since neither of us knows what is actually possible or impossible - agreed?

There's a difference between temporally prior and logically prior, as Leonhard mentions. You're basically arguing that all causality is temporal. Is that correct?

I'm saying that if we have a chain of cause and effect (infinite or not) then time would logically follow since time is related to the succession of events. How could it not be?

[seer]

If you can count anything back from the present whether the artificial notion of human units of time or objects in the past (universes?) there will always be something or anything beyond anything you could imagine.

Lets say that there are an infinite number of past universe that led to this universe. That would be just an infinite number of basically the same thing (matter and energy forming into universes). What is this something more that we can't imagine?

[shunyadragon]

Lets say that there are an infinite number of past universe that led to this universe. That would be just an infinite number of basically the same thing (matter and energy forming into universes). What is this something more that we can't imagine?

First they are unlikely just an 'infinite number of basically the same thing,' and one universe does not lead to another they are independent of one or the other, They would be an infinite number of universes forming existing and dying in the past, present and future of the matrix of the greater cosmos, according to Natural Law. For any number of universes one may imagine there would always be more in the past, present and future.

Also, there would be no chain of cause and effect between universes. The cause and effect is between the quantum world of the matrix forming singularities and universes by Natural Law.

[seer]

First they are unlikely just an 'infinite number of basically the same thing,' and one universe does not lead to another they are independent of one or the other, They would be an infinite number of universes forming existing and dying in the past, present and future of the matrix of the greater cosmos, according to Natural Law. For any number of universes one may imagine there would always be more in the past, present and future.

Also, there would be no chain of cause and effect between universes. The cause and effect is between the quantum world of the matrix forming singularities and universes by Natural Law.

That being the case what is this something more that you said is "beyond anything you could imagine?" I mean you are still left with more of the same, just more universes forming and dying.