Did the laws of physics create themselves?
Jeff W. writes:
As you have been talking about Darwinism and atheism lately, this email is to ask you for a comment on how the laws of physics were created.
It seems to me that the argument between theists and atheists has focused too narrowly on the origins of species on Earth.
What about the origin of the laws of physics? There are in the universe 117 different elements, each with its own properties as a solid, liquid or gas. There are also forms of energy: gravity and the electromagnetic spectrum, heat, light and other forces at the subatomic level. There is the dimension of time. All forms of matter and energy are governed by the laws of physics, which govern both their structure and their behavior.
All humans can do is to attempt to describe these laws using symbolic language. We certainly cannot alter them.
Is it possible for atheists to argue that the intricate, inviolable, and awe-inspiring laws of physics somehow created themselves or developed over time through some kind of random process?
I have read a good deal of argument between theists and atheists, but I do not recall any discussion of this topic. I would certainly like one of the leading atheist popularizers to respond to the question, “How were the laws of physics created?”
LA replies:
Jeff W. is entirely correct: this key idea is almost never addressed. We have a universe formed and permeated by complex, higher-order laws of physics and chemistry, yet the obvious question whether this points to the existence of a law-maker is almost never raised.
I raised the question last year in my discussion of the structure of the atom, entitled, “A simple (well, it started out simple) proof of the existence of God.” I pointed out how the rules governing the number of electrons in each electron cloud circling the atom’s nucleus, rules which determine the properties of the elements and their ability to combine with other elements to form compounds, yet which do not seem to be based on more basic laws, had to exist before any complex atoms manifesting those laws had ever come into existence. Thus it could not be said that the laws somehow “evolved” coevally along with the “evolution” of the material structures that manifested those laws. I concluded that the highly specific laws of electron valence are inherent in the universe, pointing to the existence of an organizing, non-material intelligence in the universe.
Jeff W. asks: “Is it possible for atheists to argue that the intricate, inviolable, and awe-inspiring laws of physics somehow created themselves or developed over time through some kind of random process?”
In fact, they do argue that. Two days ago I had lunch with a self-described atheist, who happily is not a dogmatic atheist and is not hostile to pro-religious and anti-Darwinian arguments, and I posed to him the very question that Jeff just raised. He maintained that the physical laws could simply exist in and of themselves and do not indicate an intelligence that created the laws. To Jeff and me, this may seem an absurd position. But it does seem to be the position of the materalist atheists.
* * *
Let me clarify the point of my earlier discussion of the structure of the atom. If the laws that govern the formation of the complex elements and compounds pre-exist those elements and compounds, then where did those laws exist prior to the existence of those elements and compounds? The laws are obviously non-material. They are mental. Therefore
there is a non-material, mental reality that pre-exists and governs the material universe.
- end of initial entry -
Desmond J. writes:
Have you not heard? The law or theory of gravity has been debunked by the theory of Intelligent Falling:
“Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down.”
LA replies
If you really think, as your analogy suggests, that Darwinian evolution is proved in the same sense that the law of gravity is proved, you are sadly ignorant of the basic issues here.
But while we’re speaking of the law of gravity, may I ask where the law of gravity exists? Can you see it? Can you touch it? No, because the law of gravity is a non-material thing, which directs and controls the behavior of the material universe.
Uh-oh, sounds as if the universe’s “G-spot” has been discovered!
Alan Roebuck writes:
You said:
“[My atheist friend] maintained that the physical laws could simply exist in and of themselves and do not indicate an intelligence that created the laws.”
Well, he has to believe it, because any cause would have to be transcendent, i.e., God.
And that’s the Achilles’ heel of atheism: it cannot account for the existence of many things that self-evidently do exist, such as morality, mathematics, scientific laws and consciousness.
And notice that with regard to the Big Bang, it isn’t just that atheism does not know what caused the universe. According to atheism the universe should not even exist. Anything that is not eternal needs a cause that is outside itself and, according to atheism everything that exists was created at the Big Bang: all matter, energy, space and time. Therefore, according to atheism, we have the ultimate absurdity of existence spontaneously leaping in to being out of absolute nothingness.
The atheist must either say “I don’t need to account for the cause of Big Bang, and the other things you mention, they’re just there, somehow,” or else he must say “I have confidence that science will discover the causes some day.” [LA replies: Or they say that space, time and matter only came into existence with the Big Bang, and therefore the question of what preceded the Big Bang is meaningless and cannot be asked. It’s an obvious attempt to get away from their unsustainable position.]
The problem is that the atheists don’t realize (or, more accurately, don’t allow themselves to realize) that their position has been defeated. They’re blind to the arguments that their position is logically self-refuting, and therefore necessarily false. They’re like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who won’t acknowledge he’s been defeated, even though King Arthur has cut off both his arms and both his legs. And the atheists won’t offer to “call it a draw.”
But of course, in a formal debate, the real audience is the audience: those listening in who are not fully committed to either side. We have a chance to show them that the atheists literally don’t know what they’re talking about.
Chris L. writes:
A couple of additional points with the laws of physics and atheism relate to your discussion. First, for the atheist, the laws of physics can only truly describe the present and the observed past. An atheist has no way of knowing that physical laws are fixed and that they were not different in the past and could not be different in the future. To claim that physical laws are fixed based on our limited observations in a multiple billion year timeframe is like observing two coin tosses out of a billion, seeing two heads, and declaring that all coin tosses result in heads.
Second, since an atheist believes that matter is all there is and all matter is controlled by physical laws, there is no possibility of freewill. An atheist I discussed this with recently claimed that there was nothing inherent in physical laws that prevented freewill. His claim was that while he could not flap his wings to fly, he did pick out his route to work this morning. When I pointed out that a computer can pick out a route to drive, the response was that in that situation, the computer has limited freewill. It seems to me that the only way an atheist can claim freewill is to redefine freewill into decision making. For my part, the definition of freewill I prefer is “the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance.”
Thanks for your time and have a Merry Christmas,
“Albert Nock” writes:
What you are talking about it known as the anthropic principle. If the laws of physics were different, we wouldn’t be here to observe them. Many scientists believe there are an infinite number of different universes with different laws of physics, we happen to be in one that supports life-forms like us. There is also speculation that these laws have changed over time, see this.
Alan Roebuck says:
The problem is that the atheists don’t realize (or, more accurately, don’t allow themselves to realize) that their position has been defeated. They’re blind to the arguments that their position is logically self-refuting, and therefore necessarily false. They’re like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who won’t acknowledge he’s been defeated, even though King Arthur has cut off both his arms and both his legs. And the atheists won’t offer to “call it a draw.”
What’s really funny is how many atheists I’ve heard give the same argument with respect to theism!
Jeff W. writes:
Thank you for your comments.
It occurs to me that the reason that the debate between theists and materialists is so dissatisfying is that the two sides are operating out of different motives.
In my case, at least, my motive for debate and discussion is a desire to seek and know the truth. In discussing the case for the existence of God, I am interested in facts, in evidence, and in conclusions supported by those facts.
The materialists, on the other hand, are playing a game that might be called “Who is the supporter of the scientific method, and who is the ignorant, superstitious yahoo?”
By the rules of this game, as soon as a materialist identifies himself as a supporter of the scientific method and his opponent as a supporter of superstition (or faith), he has won. Game over. Congratulations to the winner!
A question is how best to respond to this game-playing. I think it is by stating clearly at the outset that one is only interested in discussing facts and conclusions that flow directly from those facts. Discussion must focus on the facts of the fossil record, the facts that have been discovered about DNA, the facts of the laws of physics, the facts as they have been discovered by astronomers, etc. The question should be: What do these facts point to? There should be no jumping to conclusions without adequate foundation of fact. None of the evolutionists’ “just so stories” should be admissible, because those stories are supported by very few facts. Just so stories say, “Because the theory of evolution is true, things must have happened like this…”
A discussion where such ground rules are established might be productive and far more satisfying than playing “Who is the ignorant, superstitious yahoo?”
D. Sanchez writes:
1) Even if this were true:
“I concluded that the highly specific laws of electron valence are inherent in the universe, pointing to the existence of an organizing, non-material intelligence in the universe,”
how do you go from this to the advocacy of the truth of Christian mythology, a virgin birth, walking on water, resurrection, miracles, etc? How can you ever prove your “Christian Truth” that you refer to so often? Do I have to accept you on faith? But then what of objective truth that you say is impossible without God and religion? What do you consider objective truth? Is it ultimately derived from the evidence of the senses? If not, how can it be objective? Please explain how you know that Jesus was real and the Son of God. I would really like access to your higher knowledge, and I’m not being insulting.
2) How do you answer the problem of the infinite regress? If God created the universe, then what or who created God? If your answer is that God is his own self-sufficient explanation then why cant the universe be its own self-sufficient explanation? In which case why posit the existence of a God?
LA replies:
First of all, there is no connection between my thoughts about how the laws of the atom point to an intelligent reality in the universe and my thoughts about Christianity. The first is a logical thought process, in which certain facts about physical reality seem to me to point in the direction of a higher organizing intelligence, the precise nature of which we do not know. The second comes from the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Gospels and in the lives of people in whom he has manifested himself.
Second, the Gospels are not a mythology, nor are they presented as a mythology, nor are they written in the manner of a mythology. They are the disciples’ account of what they saw. As Luke says at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke (Richmond Lattimore translation):
SINCE MANY have undertaken to compose an account of those things which have been fulfilled among us, as those who saw for themselves from the beginning and became servants of the word have handed it down to us, it seemed good for me also, since I have followed everything closely from the first, to write it out in order for you, most exalted Theophilus, so that you may learn the truth concerning those stories of which you have been informed.
Luke presents his Gospel as a true account, based on the things he himself saw and on his interviews of the people who saw them. You’re free to disbelieve the Gospel and say that it is lie or a fantasy. You are not free to describe it as a mythology.
Third, I have not claimed to prove anything to nonbelievers about Christianity. Any statements I’ve made on that subject have been expressions of my own experience and belief. My blog entry yesterday on the Virgin Birth concerned Christians and the nature of Christianity. No one is required to be a Christian or believe in Christianity. But no one has the right to define Christianity as he pleases, as Rowan Williams has done.
Mr. Sanchez asks: “How do you answer the problem of the infinite regress? If God created the universe, then what or who created God? If your answer is that God is his own self-sufficient explanation then why cant the universe be its own self-sufficient explanation? In which case why posit the existence of a God?”
This argument, which I hear repeatedly, typifies the materialist mindset and it misconceives what I am saying. I am not appealing to or implying an “infinite regress”—one question mark leading to another, one emptiness leading to another. I am making a substantive assertion about the nature of reality, namely that the material universe which we can see with our senses is the expression of a mental or spiritual universe which we cannot see with our senses, but which the facts of material existence lead us to conclude exists. The hell of infinite regress is a typical product of materialist thought, which can never come to an end because it can never find a material cause of material existence itself. Bounded by their materialism, the materialists think that God is merely another type of empty materialist explanation for material existence.
Dan P. writes:
They just redefine the big bang as the big bounce. The universe collapses in then explodes out again ad infinitum. Seems when challenged they tend to retreat to the metaphysical or circular reasoning.
Desmond J. writes:
Why do you assume the existence of a single God? Why would not the universe have a multiple of “G-spots”? How does the G-spot theory (?) validate Christian doctrine?
LA replies:
Now you’re just wasting my time. As I explained to D. Sanchez, I was not attempting to prove Christian doctrine. I was demonstrating a simple point that would be evident to anyone who is not being deliberately difficult. It is that the laws of physics and mathematics are expressions of mind, and can only be known by mind. The law of gravity, the laws of motion, the Pythagorean theorem are not material things. They are mental. The existence of such laws demonstrates that reality consists of more than matter and energy.
The truth of what I’ve just said, or something like it, would have been readily admitted by virtually all human beings who have ever lived, prior to Western civilization of the last 150 years, where people have conceived the wacky, ruthless dogma that only matter and energy exist. But how did they conceive of this materialist idea? With their minds, their consciousness. Can we see their minds? No. Can we see their thoughts, their consciousness? No. True, we can measure electric impulses and changes in chemical balance in the neurons of their brains, but those are not their thoughts, any more than the changes of voltage in the transistors of your tv set are the same as the images and sounds being played in your tv set. Thus the materialists have thoughts the very reality of which they either outright deny or else reduce to electro-chemical phenomena. The same materialist dogma that leads them to dismiss, as irrational fantasy, the idea of an organizing intelligence of the universe, leads them to dismiss, as irrational fantasy, the reality of their own minds.
We’re left with the comedy of modern secular man, who uses his consciousness to deny that consciousness exists, and thinks himself the cleverest creature that ever was.
Alan Roebuck writes:
There is a simple and direct answer to the following question posed by D. Sanchez:
“How do you answer the problem of the infinite regress? If God created the universe, then what or who created God? If your answer is that God is his own self-sufficient explanation then why can’t the universe be its own self-sufficient explanation? In which case why posit the existence of a God?”
It is logically necessary that there be some entity that is eternal, because, if nothing is eternal, then there would have been a “time ” (realm?) when nothing existed, not even space and time. That is, if nothing is eternal, then absolute nothingness must have somehow “created” everything that exists. Since this position is obviously false, atheists used to believe that the cosmos was eternal, and since there was no good scientific evidence against this proposition, they were at least somewhat justified in their belief.
But now that the science that Mr. Sanchez undoubtedly trusts as the highest authority has overwhelming evidence that the cosmos is not eternal, it necessarily follows that the Eternal One must be something non-physical. And since we have no evidence that God came into being at a finite time in the past, we are fully justified in regarding Him as eternal.
Thus the answer to Mr. Sanchez’s questions is: “Because logic and evidence point to the existence of God.”
LA replies:
Thanks to Mr. Roebuck for this. It is the clearest explanation of this idea that I’ve seen. I think I finally “got” it.
D. Sanchez writes:
Thank you for your response. Here is mine.
“I am making a substantive assertion about the nature of reality”
Where’s the substance? All you’re saying is that non-existence (“transcendence”) exists, which is a contradiction.
[LA replies: By substantive I mean I’m making an assertion about the nature of something. To say, “God exists” is a substantive assertion.
By his question, Mr. Sanchez shows how materialists would literally prohibit human language, and thus prohibit humanity, because for the materialists only material assertions are real assertions.]
“…namely that the material universe which we can see with our senses is the expression of a mental or spiritual universe which we cannot see with our senses” Evidence of this “mental or spiritual universe” please.
[LA replies: The evidence for the existence of the mental and spiritual universe is the visible and invisible universe, “all things visible and invisible.” If Mr. Sanchez acknowledges the existence of his own consciousness and self, which cannot be seen or even proved scientifically, then he has admitted the existence of the mental and spiritual universe.]
“…but which the facts of material existence lead us to conclude exists.” All you’ve done is play fast and loose with complicated science, claiming that there are some type of “gaps” in science which can’t be answered. From this you jump to the non-material and “transcendent” and claim evidence of a “spiritual universe”. At best, you’ve raised questions that science or rational philosophy have not answered and need to answer. Theists usually do this with quantum physics, which does pose very complicated (yet answerable) philosophic questions. You have not proved the existence of any other “universes,” real or spiritual.
“The hell of infinite regress is a typical product of materialist thought..” No. The infinite regress is what the theist leaves himself open to. You are saying that existence is not a self-sufficient explanation but is itself the “expression” of a transcendent realm. But what of this transcendent realm? You say it is the ultimate truth and needs no explanation. But why can’t the universe be its own explanation and ultimate truth, an axiom to use the language of philosophy?
[LA replies: The reason the universe cannot be its own explanation has been pointed to over and over. And this is not just a matter of occasional gaps; it is a matter of the very nature of the universe. Everything about the physical universe, from elementary particles to a bird’s brain to the Big Bang, points to a transcendent realm, meaning something that we cannot experience directly with our senses but that we nevertheless know exists.
There are several things that cannot be explained by matter, or by matter and energy. From the highest to the most basic level they are:
consciousness;
organic form;
life;
physical and mathematical law;
the existence of matter itself.
Also I don’t say that the transcendent requires no explanation. I’m saying that based on the nature of existence, we know that the transcendent exists. Again, does Mr. Sanchez admit that his consciousness exists? Then he has admitted the existence of a transcendent realm.
As for the question of infinite regress that Mr. Sanchez keeps returning to, if he and I were walking along and we came upon a marble statue of Zeus, and Mr. Sanchez said that the statue had created itself through a process of random change, and I said, no, this statue has been created by a sculptor, would I be starting or implying or making necessary an infinite regress? No. I’d simply be saying that this statue was self-evidently the work of a sculptor. I wouldn’t have to know anything in particular about the sculptor for that statement to be true. I wouldn’t have to know what his intentions were, or how he came to be inspired to make this statue, or what tools he used, or how he had come to be born, or what his parents were like, to know for an absolute fact that the statue had been made by a sculptor. End of subject. No infinite regress.]
Thus the infinite regress. Now from experience I know that theists will fall back on the argument that their spiritual world needs no explanation because it operates according to totally different rules. It’s the divine after all. But this comes back to the baseless claim that “I know there is another world which represents deeper truth. But that world cannot be explained or derived from material science. It just is.” How convenient.
[LA replies: Not true. I do say that the nature of the physical world as explored by science leads us to the existence of non-material intelligence as the basis of the physical world.]
What you’ve done is assert the existence of non-existence and told me no explanation is needed and no explanation is possible. What this means is that I have to believe this on faith which means the deliberate suspension of my cognitive faculty and the acceptance of things without evidence. And of course, once you jettison the evidence of the senses its deuces wild.
[LA replies: Mr. Sanchez has gone way beyond anything I’ve said. All I’ve said is that the physical universe points to something beyond itself. This is not an assertion that one must “believe by faith.” It’s a rational inference to which the universe itself leads us.]
Which gets me back to another question I asked which is how you get from your “gaps” in science to the fantasy (I agree with your technical objection to “mythology”) of Christianity. But I have my answer. If you’re willing to jettison reality in favor of transcendent or spiritual realms then what harm could it do to believe Luke’s account of virgin births and walking on water and miracles and resurrections? They need no evidence either.
[LA replies: How have I jettisoned reality? I accept reality. It is Mr. Sanchez who is so dogmatic in his materialism that he thinks that if a person says there is something more than matter, he has rejected matter.]
D. Sanchez writes:
First, let me thank you for taking time to reply. My intention was not to convince you of the logic of atheism. You are way past the point of rejecting God and religion in your life. My intention was to determine what type of theist you are. There are many versions. With your answers, now I know. I will make one final point. Here are some excerpts from your replies with my emphasis added:
“Everything about the physical universe, from elementary particles to a bird’s brain to the Big Bang, points to a transcendent realm, meaning something that we cannot experience directly with our senses…”
“I do say that the nature of the physical world as explored by science leads us to the existence of non-material intelligence as the basis of the physical world.”
“All I’ve said is that the physical universal points to something beyond itself.”
“I am making a substantive assertion about the nature of reality, namely that the material universe which we can see with our senses is the expression of a mental or spiritual universe which we cannot see with our senses…”
Now let me leave you with this quote from Atlas Shrugged. It is from John Galt’s speech:
“All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.”
LA replies to D. Sanchez:
That’s truly horrendous, horrendous in its ignorance, in its hatred, in its absolute negation of religion, in its view of religion as nihilism, in its view of religion as the absolute enemy.
And it’s horrendous that, after I engaged in a civilized discussion with you, you would send to me this statement of hatred of religion.
Do not write to me again.
Dan M. writes:
D. Sanchez’s claim that theists have a problem with an infinite regress betrays an ignorance of philosophical arguments of this kind, i.e., with the whole of philosophy of religion. At least since the time of Aristotle philosophers have argued for the necessary existence of a “first efficient cause” precisely because an infinite regress was logically impermissable. [LA replies: I knew about Aristotle’s unmoved mover, but I didn’t want to rely on that to deal with D. Sanchez’s challenge to me.] It is contemporary atheists who have decided to accept an infinite regress at least in part because they are otherwise forced to accept the existence of a First in the order of causality, i.e., they are forced to accept the existence of that which all men call God. Thus in answer to the question of what preceded the Big Bang, some have answered that it must have been an infinite series of Big Bangs.
But theists don’t have this problem; the nature of a First is that nothing preceded it. What we call “God,” is what philosophers call a first efficient cause and metaphysical absolute of being, which means it is an immaterial ground and source of all being, motion and causality. To ask what caused God is implicitly to reject the idea of a “first” in the order of causality, and hence being. As far as I know, no contemporary atheist philosophers make this argument—they know it’s a non-starter—it is atheists who must explain why they accept what Aquinas says no rational man accepts. The complaint one usually hears today is that God is an “unexplained explainer,” and is no better an explanation than an infinite series of actually infinite causes. But unexplained explainers mark the frontiers of all the sciences, they define the areas of contemporary research. In the case of God, however, to explain further one must turn not to science, but to theology, for philosophy and science reach their limits very quickly at this extreme of reality. As well, there are other, and mathematical reasons why an infinite regress should be rejected, which is beyond the scope of this comment.
Terry Morris writes:
It is pretty interesting that Sanchez has bought into this illogic.
The most striking and obvious error I see in the quote is that the author of Alas Shrugged apparently counts it the same thing to say that “A is non-A” and “God is non-man.” These statements do not equate. To say that God is non-man is something like saying apple is non-orange, water is non-fire … A is not B, and etc. There’s nothing wrong, unreasonable, illogical, or whatever about this. To say that A is not-A is a contradiction and illogical; it is like saying fire is non-fire, water is non-water, apple is non-apple. But that is not what theists say, and that is not what is meant by the phrase “God is non-man,” something any reasonable person would easily understand. To say that the two statements equate, or to imply it (to use them in the same sentence as examples of the same error) is unreasonable. At best it’s disingenuous, at worst it’s completely irrational.
Beyond that, the quote can be completely turned around. For example a theist could argue the following:
“All the atheists’ denials consist of affirmations.” Then show where atheists affirm that the concepts “God” and “man” are distinctive and not the same things. For instance, “God is not man.” Essentially atheists assert that they know enough about God to know that He does not exist. But if He does not exist, then how do they know anything about Him, particularly concerning His existence?
LA replies:
In fact, Rand’s logic in this passage (which I had never read before, I’ve never read John Galt’s unreadable speech) is strikingly like that of the aggressive atheist Darwinians of today such as Dawkins. For these people, only material reality exists. So if you say something like, “A single cell, the parts and functions of which are as complicated as New York City, cannot have come into being by a random process, therefore it must be the result of intelligent design,” by the very fact of making such a statement you have already departed from science and reality and are no longer a part of decent society. It is forbidden to disagree with materialism. Similarly, for Ayn Rand, simply to assert that God exists and is not man, is a negation of existence, an act of radical nihilism, and a moral crime—indeed, the ultimate moral crime. I suppose that Rand is the first thinker to define belief in God as nihilism.
Sage McLaughlin writes:
It seems to me there is an extremely simple answer to the materialists’ absurd claim that there is an infinite regression that theists choose not to face. I say that there is a much more obvious and starkly unanswerable problem that the materialists themselves choose not to face: How is it that we in the present moment have come to the end of an infinite series, which we recognize as impossible from our own present perspective?
If it is true that the material past is infinite, that it regresses forever and that there are an infinite number of purely material sequential causes/contingencies that have given us what we observe as the present, then the present moment would not exist—at least not yet. There would be an infinite number of contingencies necessary to produce the present, and therefore, for the same reason we can never reach some future material destination which would require an infinite number of steps to achieve, the present moment could never have been achieved through a literally infinite progression of causes and effects. What we recognize as the present moment would always exist in some point infinitely far into the future. There would always be more causes, more effects, more contingencies that would have to transpire before we could finally achieve “the now.” That is the impossible quandary of infinite regression. So the materialists are stealing a base, using concepts like cause and effect which can only cohere in a bounded material universe, which has a definite beginning (though not necessarily a definite end).
I hope that I make myself clear. Having not been forced to delve into metaphysics for quite a long time, I’m finding that my vocabulary is stunted.
LA replies:
I can’t say I fully understand Mr. McLaughlin’s logic. But his conclusion seems to be: if there were an infinitely long chain of sequential material causes for every phenomenon and every existent in the material universe, there could never be any phenomena or existents in the material universe.
Sage M. replies:
Perhaps I can sum it up this way:
If the past is infinite regress, then the present is the end point, the culmination, of an infinite series. But an infinite series can have no end. The point is, there has to have been some starting point, some beginning.
Terry Morris writes:
You wrote:
“I can’t say I fully understand Mr. McLaughlin’s logic. But his conclusion seems to be: if there were an infinitely long chain of sequential material causes for every phenomenon and every existent in the material universe, there could never be any phenomena or existents in the material universe.”
The logic goes like this:
(1) An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
(2) If there were an infinite number of moments before this moment (the moment that I’m writing this comment), then this moment (and this comment) would never have come, since an infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
(3) But this moment (the moment of this writing) has come.
(4) Hence, there were only a finite number of moments before this moment (i.e., a beginning of time). And everything with a beginning had a Beginner. Therefore the temporal world had a Beginner, and it ain’t Him.
It remains to be seen whether the moment will ever come when this comment is posted under your article. But I’m betting that if it doesn’t appear, it isn’t because an infinite number of moments has finally been traversed. ;-)
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Send