Smile - the Universe Has a Cause!

I used to have some rudimentary theological discussions back in college. In retrospect, they seem about as clear as the air in which many of these enlightened forums occurred.  Back then, I found it impossible to overcome the seemingly obvious logic of statements like "in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of possibilities."  What this meant was that any point someone was making could potentially be true since the universe was infinite and thus would logically contain every possibility. What I have since come to understand is that while the universe is very very big, it is decidedly not infinite, nor could it be logically, and as such, there are not an infinite amount of possibilities.

I had been wanting to read William Lane Craig's book "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" for a long time and finally got around to it.  I am quite partial to the Cosmological Argument for God's existence in the various forms that it takes and find the logic to be simple and compelling.  Dr. Craig's book was written in 1979 but considering that the thinkers he explores (al-Kindi, Rav Saadia Gaon, al-Ghazali) wrote roughly 1000 years before that, I don't think that much has occurred to dislodge the argument in the intervening years.  It basically works like this:

First Premise - Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
Second Premise - The Universe began to exist
Conclusion - The Universe has a cause of its existence

Dr. Craig spends all of eight pages discussing Premise One - why?  Because the point is essentially self-evident.  All of our experience and intuition tells us that all that exists has a cause of its existence. No one, no matter how intellectually muddled, ever responds to a question like "where did that raspberry danish come from?" with a response like "why need it come from anywhere?  Perhaps this danish is simply un-caused!"  Yes, David Hume famously went on about this very point but as Elizabeth Anscombe has pointed out "I can imagine a rabbit coming into existence without a parent rabbit, well and good...but from my being able to do that, nothing whatever follows about what is possible to suppose - without contradiction or absurdity - as holding in reality."

He spends 75 pages on Premise Two.  This one is harder given the difficulty in trying to justify how nothing (literally nothing, not "quantum fluctuations, laws of nature, etc) gave rise to something.  He advances two lines of reasoning - one philosophical and one empirical.  Each is rather technical and challenging to follow for a non-philosopher/non-mathematician but I do think that the broad strokes are readily understandable.  The philosophical argument works like this:

1.  An actual infinite cannot exist
2.  An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite
3.  Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist

Many people mistakenly believe that the brilliant German mathematician Georg Cantor demonstrated the possibility of the infinite through his work in "Set Theory."  However, like the musings of Hume, his ideas could only ever exist in the world of the mind.  As another great German Jewish mathematician, Abraham Robinson, put it "Cantor's infinities are abstract and divorced from the physical world." All this just goes to say that although we can dream up many fanciful ideas of various infinities, in the real physical world, none actually exist.  Hence, the universe is not infinite - it began to exist.

He goes on to point out that "even if an actual infinite can exist, the temporal series (the flow of time) of events cannot be one, since an infinite cannot be formed by successive addition as the temporal series of events is."  What he's saying is that since we can always add one more second, minute or hour to the series that has passed, we can never have an actual infinity of time.  This implies our conclusion - that time itself had a beginning.

The empirical argument that strikes me as most interesting is the argument from thermodynamics. In a nutshell, physics teaches us that all systems have the tendency to pass from a more ordered to a less ordered state and from a state of lower entropy to one of higher entropy.  Things become more disorderly and more uniform as time goes on.  As such, if the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time we would already have expected it to have reached a state of maximum entropy and uniformity.  It would be the same everywhere and essentially dead.  Inasmuch as it's obviously nothing like that we can again conclude that the universe began to exist.

Well, so what?  You may ask.  Why does it matter that it can be shown that the universe has a cause of its existence?  In Dr. Craig's words:

"We ought to ponder long and hard over this truly remarkable conclusion, for it means that transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo (from absolute nothingness).  If our discussion has been more than a mere academic exercise, this conclusion ought to stagger us, ought to fill us with a sense of awe and wonder at the knowledge that our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it.  For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."

William Lane Craig and Me

I don't know how I missed this but I have just discovered that two years ago something that I wrote in the Huffington Post was discussed in a Podcast by Professor William Lane Craig.  Dr. Craig is an actual philosopher and one that atheist writer Sam Harris once said "seems to put the 'fear of God' into his fellow atheists." He has debated the whole gauntlet of the "new atheists" though Richard Dawkins famously chickened out of his debate with him at Oxford.  He is, in my estimation, a very impressive thinker and that he saw fit to discuss (for 20 min!) something associated with me is quite astounding.

In any event, if you have any interest in the Cosmological Argument for God's existence you might enjoy giving this a listen: A Rabbi Looks at the Kalam Argument.

Most of the information in the piece came from the writing of Theological Philosopher Edward Feser so at best I can only take credit for having understood what he said, but still.  You can see the original article here.

Can Anything Be Proven?

I was taken to task recently for presenting what I have to say in too much of an authoritative tone.  It was suggested that I not attempt to offer my thoughts on various theological questions as "proofs" inasmuch as they may not be provable and that suggesting otherwise could compromise my credibility (assuming I have any to begin with) on these topics.  In hunting around for people who really do have the proper credentials to address this question I came across this video from another of my favorite theological philosophers William Lane Craig.  Here's what he had to say about the need/concept of proof:




I think his point is well taken.  There is no need to demonstrate an argument with mathematical precision for it to be valid and powerful.  In truth, the more you even push mathematical truths the more difficult it becomes to actually prove them.  From what I understand, though it seems pretty obvious, there isn't any actual proof for the premise that 1+1=2 inasmuch as it's based on axioms which are definitionally unprovable.  Pushing things even further, it's also not possible to prove that what we perceive with our brains is reliable and accurate - effectively calling into question (from an absolute proof perspective) all that we understand and believe - literally.

Therefore, inasmuch as we need to live and function in this world, we need to decide to be ok with our lack of proof.  When we cross the street, it's considered a reasonable precaution to look left, right and left again. No one attempts to produce a formal, mathematical demonstration before taking on the risks of the crossing. We also need not concern ourselves with wonder over whether or not the people who we believe to be our parents truly are or if the sun will rise tomorrow morning.  All that's needed is a coherent argument in its favor.

My general approach to God and Torah is the same - it's not a matter of scientific proof.  A better analogy would be that of a jury hearing the evidence from a civil trial.  No one in the jury was there.  They're doing their best, based on the cognitive skills they have and the evidence that's presented to reach the correct conclusion.  Post deliberation, a decision must be made.  I believe the the preponderance of evidence rests with the position of the classical theist - others do not.  Neither of us has (ultimate) proof but each of us must act based on the conclusions we draw and those actions have significant ramifications for us - both as individuals and societally.

"Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved.  And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean it's true."

- Jonah Lehrer

William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins

Professor Richard Dawkins is an articulate speaker and a gifted and entertaining writer.  He also may well be a gifted Biologist though I don't have any truly independent way to verify it given my lack of biological training.  What I'm pretty sure he's not is a gifted theologian or philosopher.  Despite his continued success and myriad accolades, Professor Dawkins has been taken on (manhandled some might say) by the likes of David Stove, David Berlinski, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Edward Feser and many others.

There seems to be an assumption in the world at large that the tide and the times favor Dawkins and his materialist approach to existence.  I beg to differ.  There are a host of highly trained (and highly intelligent) voices out there who lay bare the deficiencies of the canonized atheist lines of argumentation - often with a flare and humor of their own.  Professional atheist Sam Harris has noted that Professor William Lane Craig "seems to strike fear into the hearts of my atheist colleagues" and with good reason as is demonstrated in the video below where Professor Dawkins failed to even show for their debate at Oxford.

Professor Craig does a fine job out outlining the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.  There may very well be excellent refutations for this argument, but they are not emerging from the mouth nor pen of Richard Dawkins.

Enjoy