Scientific discoveries like the Big Bang give
support to the Christian position that God created the universe. The
Intelligent Design movement refines the argument, contending that a Creator is necessary to explain the
existence of complex ordered things, like a universe or a human being or a
strand of DNA. Nonetheless, the atheist will often challenge the believer by
deriding such acknowledgement of God as primitive or foolish. Many times the
challenge goes something like this:
“We once thought that thunderbolts were the sound of the gods playing pins. Before science came along to light the way, primitive man resorted to stories about the gods to explain what was occurring. So, why can’t you see that current belief in God is just more of the same? Why can’t you simply admit that we don’t yet know how we got here, or how DNA was first formed or why it works? Why keep going back to the same old “it must be God’s work” instead of just admitting that this is no explanation at all?”
This argument cleverly places the believer on the defensive. On a rhetorical level, it has the added advantage of using ridicule to belittle the proponent, bypassing completely the underlying merits of the ID argument. And as any child knows – there is little that logic or reason can do in the face of a well-honed appeal to ridicule.
But let’s shave away the ridicule and take a
deeper look at what lies behind the challenge. The implied critique can be
restated as follows: if primitive men were
ignorant when they assumed a personal agent caused lightning, then all people
who draw inferences about personal agents causing events are also guilty of
ignorance. We shouldn’t resort to “God” as an explanation for the source of DNA
because eventually science will show us what really caused it. But this line of thinking is simply false.
Sometimes personal agents cause events – like when someone intentionally sets a
fire – and sometimes events occur by chance or by some impersonal law. To
decide which is the actual cause of an event, we must use reason to assess the
available evidence.
Since primitive man had no scientific knowledge, it is understandable that he might attribute a powerful event like lightning to a personal source. Through science, we know that resort to a personal agent for each bolt of lightening is not necessary. Meteorology may tell us why lightening occurs - the mechanism that brings it about - but it does not explain who, or what, crafted the laws of nature that make this so. Christians, then, are not imagining a creator when they look at the evidence of the design of the universe and its exquisitely fine-tuned laws. Quite the contrary: given the nature of the universe – its order, fine tuning and the complex design inherent in life – we quite properly infer that something immensely intelligent and immensely powerful must have set it in motion.
What, then, of the skeptic’s challenge that we don’t know how it was done? But what difference does how make, when the only question really at issue is not how, but by whom? By the skeptic’s reasoning, I should also admit that because I am ignorant of how programming, hard drives and BIOS’s work, the source of computers is simply unknowable. I should just "be honest and admit that I don’t know,” as the skeptic would have it. But what I don’t know is simply the mechanism by which the thing is done, and this is very different than the existence of the source of the thing itself. And even when I determine the mechanism - as in the case of lightening - I do not yet have the entire explanation.
And this is where the skeptic’s position starts to fall apart. If I really am ignorant of how a computer works, how could I conclude that everyone else must be as well? Would it not be possible that others who had studied the question more or who had access to other sources of knowledge might know what I didn’t? So, if I really believed my own ignorance, why challenge others to also admit ignorance? Could it be that the atheist doesn't just feign ignorance, but is succeeding in making himself so?
As Christians, we bear witness to a personal God, not because we are grasping at myths, but because we believe the evidence of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection sufficient for us to know Him in a personal way. In other words, we personalize the source of the Big Bang not by myth but by another source of knowledge - the specific revelation of the Bible.
In the end, science and the Christian worldview are not in conflict. It is the one who insists despite the evidence, that there is no God – and ultimately no one to whom we will one day be called to answer – that is persisting in ignorance.
Since primitive man had no scientific knowledge, it is understandable that he might attribute a powerful event like lightning to a personal source. Through science, we know that resort to a personal agent for each bolt of lightening is not necessary. Meteorology may tell us why lightening occurs - the mechanism that brings it about - but it does not explain who, or what, crafted the laws of nature that make this so. Christians, then, are not imagining a creator when they look at the evidence of the design of the universe and its exquisitely fine-tuned laws. Quite the contrary: given the nature of the universe – its order, fine tuning and the complex design inherent in life – we quite properly infer that something immensely intelligent and immensely powerful must have set it in motion.
What, then, of the skeptic’s challenge that we don’t know how it was done? But what difference does how make, when the only question really at issue is not how, but by whom? By the skeptic’s reasoning, I should also admit that because I am ignorant of how programming, hard drives and BIOS’s work, the source of computers is simply unknowable. I should just "be honest and admit that I don’t know,” as the skeptic would have it. But what I don’t know is simply the mechanism by which the thing is done, and this is very different than the existence of the source of the thing itself. And even when I determine the mechanism - as in the case of lightening - I do not yet have the entire explanation.
And this is where the skeptic’s position starts to fall apart. If I really am ignorant of how a computer works, how could I conclude that everyone else must be as well? Would it not be possible that others who had studied the question more or who had access to other sources of knowledge might know what I didn’t? So, if I really believed my own ignorance, why challenge others to also admit ignorance? Could it be that the atheist doesn't just feign ignorance, but is succeeding in making himself so?
As Christians, we bear witness to a personal God, not because we are grasping at myths, but because we believe the evidence of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection sufficient for us to know Him in a personal way. In other words, we personalize the source of the Big Bang not by myth but by another source of knowledge - the specific revelation of the Bible.
In the end, science and the Christian worldview are not in conflict. It is the one who insists despite the evidence, that there is no God – and ultimately no one to whom we will one day be called to answer – that is persisting in ignorance.
Posts
16 comments:
To be clear, are you actually referencing The Big Bang Theory for the origins of the universe?
Aside from that, I found the logic to be sound and well stated. Kudos and God bless!
Yes, I am referring to that theory.
Thanks.
Al,
I'm curious, where have you heard this criticism?
I've heard Dan Barker mention Thor in one of his debates. But that was not part of his argument---rather, it was part of an introduction which seemed to be aimed at getting the audience to loosen up and laugh. And it worked, by the way.
If you're interested though, there are plenty of genuine (and genuinely challenging!) criticisms of fine-tuning and cosmological arguments available, as well as criticisms of whatever other religious arguments you happen to find compelling. For example, here is one of Wes Morriston's outstanding critiques of WL Craig's Kalam cosmological argument (he has others too, available through Google). Fine-tuning criticisms are harder to find (probably because sophisticated fine-tuning defenses are similarly rarer), but they're out there. For instance here's one by Kent Staley. Or you could even try my own personal critique of Robin Collins' version of the design argument.
So if you're not impressed by appeals to Thor, fair enough. I wouldn't be either. But if you're interested to know what skeptics actually think of religious arguments, then perhaps you should read what the skeptics themselves are writing.
Also: if you want to have a conversation about the evidence (or lack thereof) for God's existence, I'd be happy to oblige. In that case, I recommend we focus on one particular argument for the existence of God (of your choosing), and see if it stands up to scrutiny.
Regards,
Ben
This came from an email exchange I had with a skeptic. I’ve heard variations on this argument in a number of other conversations, which is why I decided to write about it.
I’m not impressed by appeals to Thor because I prefer a logical argument to an effort to ridicule as a better vehicle for arriving at the truth. Yes, there are “better” arguments against theism, but those arguments are not better than the arguments for theism (in my opinion). In fact, I would go so far as to say, as St. Anselm did in his ontological argument, that insisting there is no creator is an absurd position to take, inasmuch as it states a contradiction (“I believe that the being who must necessarily exist does not exist). The skeptic of course does not realize he is saying this, but the careful thinking Anselm did teases out what really is at play. So, agnosticism - maybe. But insisting that you know there is no God? That would involve the kind of infinite knowledge that only God would have.
While the ontological argument is my favorite, let’s start with the cosmological argument.
All things that come into being have a cause.
The universe came into being.
Therefore the universe had a cause. Not perhaps the God of the Bible. But these are first steps.
Al,
Thanks for the response.
I'm sorry that your atheist emailer resorted to such tactics. I agree that they are unhelpful.
As for the ontological argument, it has some very serious problems, but since you want to start with the cosmological argument, let's go ahead and do that.
It looks like you're appealing to a modified form of WL Craig's cosmological argument. Only, instead of "begin to exist" you substitute the phrase "come into being." So my response to this argument is pretty much the same as my response to Craig: the arguments available for the first two premises aren't compelling.
Regarding the first premise---all things that come into being have a cause---what makes you think that's true? Craig has three arguments for his version of the premise: First, he appeals to intuition; second, he thinks denying the first premise commits us to assigning properties to nothingness; and third, he appeals to experience. Are these the same arguments you wish to make? I think all of them fall short.
First, I don't share the intuition Craig has, and even if I did, we have no reason to trust our intuition in this regard anyway. Second, "nothingness" does not exist, and so positing brute facts does not amount to assigning properties to it. Third, the causal principle is unfalsifiable, and so appeals to experience won't help us support it.
Obviously I can elaborate on these points if you like. But I figure a brief outline is sufficient for the moment.
The second premise also has its problems. But we can tackle those later, if you're up for it.
Regards,
Ben
Ben,
When you say that something is impossible, you mean that you will never believe that it occurred. You may try to ground that in science, but my point is that your mind is closed. You are prejudging, not evaluating, the evidence, despite any claim that you are fairly assessing the evidence.
“Creation out of nothing” is not a dysphemism; it has no negative connotation attached to it. It is simply a shorthand way of referring to what is colloquially referred to as the Big Bang Theory. Your comment about time is accurate but misses the point. Yes, there is no “before time” to the universe because the universe is itself a manifestation of space-time. Time as we know it began at that moment. But I was speaking metaphorically, not from the perspective of an actual human being surviving a trip back to the beginning to observe it. But this doesn’t prevent us from realizing that the universe had a point in the discrete past when it began. The probability of that event is one, as you say, because it occurred, as opposed to not occur. But this was my point: the probability of Christ’s resurrection is one, because it happened. What might have been before his death isn’t relevant; the event either happened or it didn’t. Probability assessment may play some role in assessing some pieces of evidence, but it cannot make the determination for you. Only a review of the evidence itself can do that.
You say we should assess the evidence, and not just rule it out, but that is in fact what you do. You treat you’re a priori conclusion about impossibility as itself being evidence, and since this “evidence” can brook no exception – after all, an impossible thing can’t occur no matter what – you reveal the internal contradiction of your position. I’ve posted a fuller explanation of why your insistence that miracles are impossible is not well placed – you can find it on the PleaseConvinceMe here:
http://pleaseconvinceme.blogspot.com/2012/06/miracles-are-possible.html
I’m not going to respond to your wizard comments, except to say that you have moved from an appeal to ridicule to an appeal to ignorance. I don’t believe that you actually have trouble determining whether ancient writings should be attributed to the writing of intelligent people or the spontaneous assembly of ink on a page. Such a comment doesn’t merit a serious response, and I suspect you realize that. (con't)
As for the cosmological argument, I would share’s Craig’s approach. As to your first point, I don’t actually believe that you don’t share Craig’s intuition that created things have a cause. When is the last time you saw a thing and, in surprise, suddenly “realized” that it had been created and was not itself eternal? If you arrived at your workplace and found a new stapler on your desk, I seriously doubt that you would look at it and marvel that it had arrived there fully assembled without any source. This is intuition, and you can’t help but be aware of it. It may be faulty, but a shared intuition of practically every human being that ever lived, an intuition that undergirds the scientific enterprise, is not something I should routinely distrust. Craig’s second point is also valid, once a person conceives of what is meant by “nothingness.” Your response is internally incoherent. Positing a “brute fact” is positing a “thing.” Nothingness is the absence of any “thing” including brute facts. There are no facts in nothingness, brute or otherwise. You are stating a contradiction. Finally, Craig’s third argument is also valid. It flows from the first. When I realize that the application of water to my clothes will make them wet every time it occurs, I am operating within reason to predict that the next time I venture out in the rain my clothing will get wet. Your response is mistakenly premised on the assumption that the only way to know something is to apply the scientific method to it, an assumption that you do not defend. Scientific testing is one way of knowing things, not the only way. Such testing tells us nothing about events that occurred on a single occasion in the past. By your reasoning, I should not have confidence that George Washington was our first president because I can’t run tests to prove that hypothesis false.
Craig’s position is simply an articulation of what most people would refer to as “common sense.” You are free to reject it, of course, but taking such wildly counter-intuitive positions – that some things that exist came into existence from no cause – without offering some support – either logical or by way of example – is not rational.
Best,
Al
Al,
I delayed my response here due to the intensity of our other discussion about miracles. I figured it would be a good idea to give us both a break from that before I continued this discussion here.
Anyway, let me tackle your criticisms. Your second-to-latest comment appears to be a response to the miracles conversation. And of course I have already responded to that. Regarding your latest coment, you write:
"I don't actually believe that you don't share Craig's intuition that created things have a cause. When is the last time you saw a thing and, in surprise, suddenly 'realized' that it had been created and was not itself eternal? If you arrived at your workplace and found a new stapler on your desk, I seriously doubt that you would look at it and marvel that it had arrived there fully assembled without any source."
Unfortunately the intuition you describe is not the intuition you need for the Kalam argument. Allow me to explain. It is true enough that I intuit a cause for the existence of most objects in my experience, e.g. staplers. From such observations, we might inductively infer that
(*) for all objects X, if I discover that X begins to exist, then I intuit that X has a cause of its existence.
But there are two serious problems with this approach. First, it simply does not follow from (*) that therefore I intuit (1). So if you are trying to insist that I really do intuit (1), then you will need more than just (*) to make your case. Second, inductive conclusions are easily defeated by finding a counterexample. So for instance, if I infer from my universal experience of swans being white that therefore all swans are white, then this conclusion is immediately defeated when I discover the existence a black swan. In the case of (*), our universe (the one which is 14.7 bya, not the broader sense of "universe") is an obvious counterexample. For all the intuitions I might have about staplers, horses and other physical objects, the simple fact remains that I do not have the same intuition about the beginning of our universe. It follows immediately that (*) is false.
You continue:
"It may be faulty, but a shared intuition of practically every human being that ever lived, an intuition that undergirds the scientific enterprise, is not something I should routinely distrust."
It is simply not true that an intuition towards (1) "undergirds the scientific enterprise." Science does rely on causation, but it does not rely on universal causation, which is what you need for the Kalam argument.
Moreover, I'm not convinced that the majority of human beings intuit (1). Remember, it's quite different to say that we always assume things are caused than to say that we assume things are always caused.
But suppose most of us really do share some particular intuition. Does that give us reason to trust it? It might, if we can show that the intuition applies to our evolutionary environment where it was naturally selected for its adaptive value. Or perhaps if we had individual experience which instilled in us an intuition for judging our environment, that too might give us reason to trust that particular intuition. But the key here is that our intuition must originate in some mechanism which depends on that intuition being true. If the truth or falsity of the intuition depends on something in the domain outside our individual and evolutionary experience, then I don't see how we can find any reason to trust it. And clearly, the intuition towards (1) depends on something quite outside the experience of all biological life, past and present.
(cont.)
(cont.)
You continue:
"Craig's second point is also valid, once a person conceives of what is meant by 'nothingness.' Your response is internally incoherent. Positing a 'brute fact' is positing a 'thing.' Nothingness is the absence of any 'thing' including brute facts. There are no facts in nothingness, brute or otherwise. You are stating a contradiction."
You are correct that it is incoherent to suggest that there could be brute facts "in nothingness." But that is not what I have suggested. Instead, I am saying that it could be a brute fact (existing here and now) that the universe exists. In other words, the universe simply exists, period, without any cause or deeper explanation.
"Finally, Craig's third argument is also valid. It flows from the first. When I realize that the application of water to my clothes will make them wet every time it occurs, I am operating within reason to predict that the next time I venture out in the rain my clothing will get wet. Your response is mistakenly premised on the assumption that the only way to know something is to apply the scientific method to it, an assumption that you do not defend."
My response does not assume that the only way to know something is to apply the scientific method. Rather, I'm saying that we have no means of inferring from experience that everything has a cause of its existence, and this is because our experience is insensitive to the truth or falsity of that conclusion.
Regards,
Ben
Ben,
I’m having a bit of difficulty following your shorthand. You appear to be asserting that the intuition fails as to the universe, but you provide no adequate reason. Your swan example is inapt. We know that many living things come in a variety of colors, so the fact that a particular creature is black rather than white coheres with our experience. When it comes to things which come into being, we have absolutely no experience other than that they always are preceded by an adequate cause.
Once you agree that the universe came into being, it is very difficult to assert that this one particular thing is an exception to the rule.
You go on to assert that we should not trust our intuition that created things have a cause. Unless I am unwilling to ever trust anything I believe to be true, I see no way of supporting your contention. You appear to be drawing semantical distinctions that make no difference, eg. always assume vs. always caused.
Positing that the universe “simply exists, period, without any cause or deeper explanation” will not further your case. First, it is inconsistent with the scientific enterprise. If scientists believed that, they would not investigate the universe’s origins. It is also inconsistent with the best scientific conclusions regarding the origins of the universe, which do find it to be a brute fact, but instead something that began 14 billion years ago.
Perhaps the problem is with me, because your last paragraph’s meaning again escapes me. I don’t know what it means to say that “our experience is insensitive to the truth or falsity of that conclusion.” Our means of inferring that everything has a cause is human rationality, the same means that underlies all scientific investigation. Once we start to assume that nothing we discern is reliable, because our fact finding apparatus is “insensitive” to truth or falsity, we might as well close up the lab.
Thanks for weighing in. I’ll let you have the last word, if you’d like.
Al
Al,
I'm just going to restrict my attention to the first two paragraphs of your post. The last issue is more complicated, and since it appears you don't want to respond further, I'll just let that bit lie.
Anyway, you wrote:
"I’m having a bit of difficulty following your shorthand. You appear to be asserting that the intuition fails as to the universe, but you provide no adequate reason."
Well not exactly. I'm saying that I don't have the intuition in the first place. So maybe I have an intuition that staplers have causes, and I have similar intuitions for horses, coffee cups, slippers, stop signs, etc. One might expect from all that that I will likewise have the intuition that the universe is caused. But, for whatever reason, that turns out not to be the case. In fact, I have the very opposite intuition---that the universe is uncaused.
Now, you might ask, why should I fail to intuit a cause of the universe when I intuit a cause for so many other things? I confess, I do not know. But that doesn't change the fact that I lack the intuition; indeed I have the opposite intuition! So this is our black swan---the exception which contradicts the conjecture that we will always have intuitions for causation.
You continue:
"Once you agree that the universe came into being, it is very difficult to assert that this one particular thing is an exception to the rule."
Remember, though, I'm not suggesting the universe is the only thing which is uncaused. For example, you're probably familiar with the skeptical objection that virtual particles and other quantum phenomena are uncaused. Now, maybe we cannot say with certainty that these objects are uncaused, but nevertheless they are pretty good candidates for being uncaused. And who knows what other sorts of things happen in the universe which might be uncaused? Personally, I think that (nonphysical) ideas are also great candidates for things that often begin to exist uncaused. So there is a wide range of possibility out there. That we happen to be focused on examining the hypothetical beginning of the universe should not lead us to forget the rest.
(On the other hand, if time came into existence with the universe, then given that causation appears to be a temporal phenomenon, that might well explain why the universe is perhaps the one and only exception to the causal principle. Craig and others naturally dispute that causation depends on time, but they could easily be mistaken. So even if the universe is the only thing ever uncaused, that still isn't particularly surprising given its unusual temporal circumstance. But I digress.)
You continue:
"Positing that the universe 'simply exists, period, without any cause or deeper explanation' will not further your case. First, it is inconsistent with the scientific enterprise. If scientists believed that, they would not investigate the universe’s origins."
Again, science relies on causation, not universal causation. In particular, if scientists think that there could be a cause of the universe, then it makes sense for them to look for one, even if they don't know whether there actually is such a cause.
You continue:
"It is also inconsistent with the best scientific conclusions regarding the origins of the universe, which do find it to be a brute fact, but instead something that began 14 billion years ago."
A "brute fact" is just a fact which otherwise has no explanation. Saying that the universe exists as a brute fact, then, is to say simply that the universe exists, period, without further explanation. This has nothing to do with the questions of whether it began to exist or when it began to exist.
Regards,
Ben
P.S. If you change your mind, I would welcome another response. That goes for our other conversations as well.
Ben,
It’s not that I don’t want to respond. I think we’re reaching an impasse. Despite your claim to the contrary, I don’t think you really have the opposite intuition as it relates to the universe. You recognize both that your “intuition” is at odds with everything you know about how things come to exist, and you can attribute it to no identifiable reason. You are essentially undercutting your own position, because you are aware that your claim is contrary to what it really ought to be.
Your examples are not persuasive to me. Perhaps this is because I’m not a physicist. But from what I do know, “virtual particles” and quantum phenomena aren’t real. That’s why they’re called “virtual.” At best, they are models for physicists to test ideas. That’s like me saying that leprechauns are an exception to the rule that people don’t have magical powers. I have no reason to suspect that other sorts of things happen in the universe without a cause. So, there really isn’t a wide range of possibilities, unless by possibilities you mean products of imagination.
I understand what you mean by brute fact. It’s just that this gets us nowhere. I’m not willing to accept the universe as a brute fact, when it appears from all the scientific theories that it came into being 14 billion years ago. I might have to conclude that if the evidence showed the universe to be eternal (although I would probably doubt such evidence because of the logical problem of infinite regression). But with a universe that began sometime in the past, finding out how it came to exist is a worthwhile endeavor.
Al
Al,
Well if you think we're at an impasse, then okay. You are welcome to close the conversation whenever you like, of course. However it seems to me that we have plenty which is new to say. For instance in your latest post you offered some novel criticisms:
"You recognize both that your 'intuition' is at odds with everything you know about how things come to exist, and you can attribute it to no identifiable reason. You are essentially undercutting your own position, because you are aware that your claim is contrary to what it really ought to be. "
But none of this accurately describes my position. First, my intuitions about virtual particles and the universe are not "at odds" with my intuitions about staplers and coffee cups. They are just different intuitions, which is natural since they apply to different kinds of objects.
Second, it is misleading to suggest that I can't identify the reason for my intuition. I said before that I do not know what is the source of my intuitions. But I have my suspicions. Namely, I think that the fact time itself begins with the universe leads me to intuit that the universe does not have a cause. Also, I have intuitive problems with an infinite regress, which further shores up my intuition. Now, I didn't mention these suspicions before, and instead I simply stated that, whatever its origin, I don't know for sure what it is. This is because it seems irrelevant to the current topic whether I know the reason I should fail to share in Craig's opposing intuition, and so it doesn't seem like a good idea to chase such a tangential topic.
Third, I disagree that I "ought" to have any particular intuition about the universe's cause or lack thereof.
In other words, you haven't properly represented my position. Indeed, none of those criticisms apply to what I actually think.
You continue:
"Your examples are not persuasive to me. Perhaps this is because I’m not a physicist. But from what I do know, 'virtual particles' and quantum phenomena aren’t real. That’s why they’re called 'virtual.'"
Physicists seem divided on whether or not virtual particles actually exist. Certainly you will find many physics texts which clearly refer to virtual particles as "existing." On the other hand, some might insist that this is a linguistic shorthand, and not something we ought to take literally. But by denying the existence of virtual particles you just create a different problem---namely, since virtual particles causally influence real phenomena, then to insist that virtual particles do not exist is to insist that those phenomena have nonexistent causes, i.e. are uncaused. Since the causal principle is what you are trying to preserve, then denying the existence of virtual particles seems counter-productive to that project.
You continue:
"I understand what you mean by brute fact. It’s just that this gets us nowhere. I’m not willing to accept the universe as a brute fact, when it appears from all the scientific theories that it came into being 14 billion years ago."
I'm not convinced you do understand what I mean, your reassurances notwithstanding. If you did, then it wouldn't make sense for you to argue against it by appealing to the beginning of our universe, which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the existence of the universe is a brute fact.
Let me try phrasing it another way: It could be that the universe began to exist 14 bya, period. In other words, it could be a brute fact that the universe began to exist when it did.
Regards,
Ben
Ben,
Staplers and coffee cups are objects. Virtual particles are theoretical ideas. The universe is more like the former than the latter. Though we don’t know everything there is to know about the universe, it is certainly not an imaginary construct used to make sense of other observable laws. Comparing it to a virtual particle is therefore of no help.
I don’t agree that your differing intuition is irrelevant, as you say. Its relevance stems from the fact that I see no good reason for you to hold to your belief that the universe did not have a cause. I am arguing that you should reject such a belief, because it is inconsistent with everything else you know about causation (I also still think that you don’t really have the intuition that you claim) and it is preventing you from taking the next step – giving more thought to the nature of the cause which is adequate to account for the universe.
Your stated “suspicions” about causation don’t advance your case. Problems with infinite regress support the position that the universe did have a beginning; otherwise, today would never arrive… but we know that today is here. The fact that time began with the creation of the universe is also not helpful. Space-time is what began. That means that things – matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy – appear and begin to move. What we are trying to account for is the existence of these things. The fact that they move, change, degrade as time passes doesn’t change the fact that they are there.
Denying the “existence” of virtual particles is not a logical problem, as you claim. My point is that virtual particles are mental exercises used to assist physicist to make sense of that for which the currently understood laws of nature cannot account. They are not actual things, at least as of yet. By recognizing that they are different than staplers and coffee cups and universes, I am making a valid point, even if positing their existence – or the existence of something similar – helps to make sense of the universe.
I’m still not clear as to your use of “brute fact.” You seem to be using it as a label for a thing that you have already decided cannot be explained. If so, I would reject such definition. I could say that Mars is a “brute fact.” It has always existed, was not formed and no further explanation is necessary. But this would be a word game, not a discovery of truth. Similarly, saying that the universe’s beginning is a brute fact (so we’re done) tells us nothing about what caused it.
Back to you.
Al
Post a Comment