Let’s start out by analyzing the Kalam version of the Cosmological argument laid out by William Lane Craig. Craig is currently a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God has two basic premises – First, Whatever begins to exist has a cause (1). This first premise is rooted in the principle that ‘something cannot come out of nothing’. In his article, Craig points out certain objections that Humean philosophers might have to this basic claim and rejects them in light of pragmatic contradictions. He writes that “imaginability is in no way a reasonable guide to metaphysical possibility” (Craig 93). By this statement Craig implies that just because we can imagine some object to exist, it does not entail that the object exists in real life. Therefore, the existence of an object in reality entails a prime cause that is real. His second premise is that the universe began to exist (2). Here, Craig brings up the concept of a potential and an actual infinity. One might claim that the universe is a collection of infinite temporal series of past events and since we cannot count till infinity, we cannot claim a certain time when the universe came into existence. So, accordingly, the statement that the universe came into existence is absurd. Craig refutes the concept of an actual infinity and introduces the concept of a potential infinite series of events. He agrees that the concept of actual infinity is absurd and leads to absurd conclusions, however, if we view the series of temporal events following the start of the universe till the present state of it as a potential infinite series of events within a specific time frame, the absurdity surrounding the statement ‘the universe began to exist’ ceases to exist. This is analogous to the situation when one is asked to state the beginning of positive real numbers while one is positioned at 7. There is a potential infinite series of positive real numbers between 0 and 7; however, the positive real numbers begin to exist after 0. Thereby, a universe with an infinite series of temporal events leading up to the current state does have a beginning. Following from premises (1) and (2), the universe must have a cause. So far, the conclusion appears to be very sound based on the probability of the premises. Craig further brings two contemporary astrophysical phenomenons to strengthen the Kalam cosmological argument. The first phenomenon is the observed red-shift in light received from other galaxies. This red-shift indicates that in transit, the wavelength of light ‘stretches’ and thereby shifts towards the red-zone (larger wavelength) of the visible spectra (Rothstein). This further goes on to show that the universe is ‘stretching’. This ‘stretching’ is analogous to stretching an elastic fiber, where every molecule in the fiber occupies the same relative space; however, it is the space itself that is being altered. Craig goes on to refute other contemporary theories that give alternate explanations for the origin of the cosmos on the basis of literature by scientists who are apparently still working with Einstein’s General Relativity model. Later on, we will see why this rejection of other contemporary theories (especially the Oscillating Universe Theory and Hartle's and Hawking’s proposed Quantum Gravity Model) is problematic in light of recent studies. So, by accepting the Big Bang theory of origin of the universe and the singularity in our universe and discarding alternative explanations to the time before the Big Bang, Craig tries to strengthen his case for a prime mover that created this entire universe. The second physical phenomenon that Craig talks about in his article is the thermodynamic state of the universe. Again he refers to Einstein’s general relativity model and states that at the present state of ‘expansion’, the universe will run cold, the energy density would be almost zero and therefore, all we will be left with would be a cold universe with no possibility of life or any activity. This theory is consistent with his accepted theory for the start of the universe. Since the universe started with the big bang and there is no possibility (according to Einstein’s model) of an oscillatory universe, it makes sense that a potentially infinite expansion of the universe will stretch the fabric of space-time so much that the energy density of the universe will tend to zero and hence, what we would be left with will be a dead universe. Based on these two phenomenons, and the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God, Craig delves into the nature of this prime mover, God. He adds another premise to the conclusion ‘the universe has a cause’ (3) – “If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginingless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful” (Craig 107). From premises (3) and (4), he arrives at the conclusion that “an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginingless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful” (Craig 107). These properties of the creator do formulate the image of an almighty God, but it does not give us any insight into the creator’s properties of omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. This God (if we choose to call the prime mover so), does not have any basic properties of the ‘Christian’ God and given the vastness of the created universe, it is highly unlikely that human beings are any special for the creator than a speck of dust on some other planet. Thus, this cosmological creator does not have most of the qualities we attribute to the term ‘God’ and therefore it is not necessary that the Kalam cosmological argument entail a ‘Christian’ (omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent) God.
Another argument for the existence of God is presented by Robin Collins in his article ‘Design and the Many-Worlds Hypothesis’. Robin Collins is the current professor of philosophy at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania. His ‘fine tuning argument’ is one of the many versions of the teleological argument for the existence of God. He describes ‘fine tuning’ of the cosmos as “the claim that the fundamental parameters or constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe are set just right for life to occur” (Collins 130). He gives examples of the strong and weak nuclear forces that bind the nuclei of atoms together. If the numerical values of the forces were any less or more, a stable nucleus would be impossible to exist and thus, the whole universe would be just a never ending chaos of sub atomic particles. Like Craig, he delves into other contemporary universe-origin theories beside the big bang. Firstly, he looks into the many universe theory which he calls as purely metaphysical with no empirical basis. However, he does go forth and state that even if such a system of multiple parallel universes was a possibility, it would just strengthen his ‘fine tuning’ argument as he states “even if a ‘many-universe generator’ exists it seems to need to be ‘well designed’ in order to produce life sustaining universes” (Collins 135). The astrophysical explanations given by Collins on the ‘inflation’ of space are again based on Einstein’s general relativity model. Collins briefly talks about the Oscillatory Universe Theory where a universe undergoes a ‘Big Crunch’ due to gravitational pull and then a new universe emerges from that ‘Crunch’. He states that –
“According to those who use this model to attempt to explain the fine tuning, during every cycle the parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe are set at random. Since this process of collapse, explosion, collapse and explosion is assumed to have going on for all eternity, eventually a fine tuned universe will occur, indeed infinitely many of them” (Collins 131).
From this particular passage, it seems as if empirical evidence and a better fitting gravitational model was provided for an oscillating universe, Collins would agree a ‘fine tuned’ universe might arise out of sheer probability. Collins further presents his case for design and comments on the simplicity of the physical laws and the sheer beauty of them. Here Collins seems to commit a fallacy by assuming the latest laws of physics are the definitive laws of the universe just because they are simplistic and beautiful. Physics has undergone groundbreaking changes since the 19th century and looking at the trend, it is more likely that these physical laws will undergo much change in the future. The past century was dominated by Newton’s classical physics and the laws were very simplistic and ‘beautiful’. However, Einstein brought in the concept of general relativity and the laws became a bit more complex, but they could explain more physical phenomenon on a more general scale. The current quantum theories involve much more complex set of rules and they explain a larger range of physical phenomenon compared to Einstein’s General relativity equations. Thus, it is more likely that further knowledge of the observable universe will lead to more complex and generalized set of physical laws. Judging the nature of design based on incomplete set of physical laws seems inherently flawed and thus the case for design based on the beauty and simplicity of physical laws fails. Thereby, Collin’s ‘fine tuning’ argument for an intelligent design falls apart if there is a high probability of random chance leading to the creation of physical laws that sustain life in our universe (in light of the oscillatory Universe Model).
After reviewing the above two arguments for the existence of God and the astrophysical explanations and implications, lets delve into the problems with Einstein’s general relativity model relating to the Big Bang. Einstein tried to apply his General Theory of Relativity (GTR) to the current state of the universe and tried to collaborate it with the Doppler red-shift and the theory of the ‘expanding’ (or rather stretching) universe. The calculations on his model yielded absurd results near the time frame of the Big Bang and hence he was forced to involve a ‘fudge factor’ into his GTR model. However, later empirical evidence disproved of the existence of this ‘fudge factor’ and hence his cosmological theory intended on finding a causal effect for the big bang and getting a glimpse inside the time-frame before the Big Bang fell apart. The absurd calculations arose at time t nearing zero (the time of the Big Bang). Later physicists tried different models such as the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation Model (first proposed by Edward Tyron in 1973) which claims that the universe was created from vacuum. For example, it is possible for matter and antimatter particles to originate from pure vacuum and exist for a brief flash of time quantum mechanically and then disappear into nothingness (Pandian). As Pandian, currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Germany, states - “The main difficulty of this proposal is that the probability that a 13.7 billion year old universe could arise from this mechanism is extremely small” (Pandian). Later, Alexander Vilenkin took the concept of quantum tunneling and proposed that the universe started in a totally empty space and then through quantum tunneling made a transition to a non-empty state, which through the concept of space-time inflation came to its current size. The problem with most contemporary theories regarding the time before the origin of the cosmos is at times of the order of 10-43 seconds, the approximation of a classical description of space and time breaks down completely and thus all we are left with are absurd formulations. However, there is a new cosmological theory about the origin of our universe that escapes these hurdles faced by Einstein’s GTR and other theories based on the Big Bang model. Developed by Martin Bojowald, assistant professor of physics at Penn State, the new ‘Big Bounce’ model of the universe utilizes developments in the Loop Quantum Gravitational theory to propose a universe that originated from the collapse of a previous universe. In an interview with Penn State live, the University’s official news source, Bojowald explained “Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity does not include the quantum physics that you must have in order to describe the extremely high energies that dominated our universe during its very early evolution… but now we have Loop Quantum Gravity that does include the necessary quantum physics” (Kennedy). Scientists using the Loop Quantum Gravitational theory have calculated that if we trace our universe backward in time, the minimum volume is not zero and the energy density is not infinite. Thereby, the universe bounces from its collapse at a time and from a volume greater than zero (not from absolute vacuum). The reason for this ‘bounce’ is the tearing of the space-time fabric under extreme conditions and high energy densities as time tends to zero. So, instead of vanishing, the universe rebounds and thus leads to the formation of a new universe. According to Bojowald, this theory reveals a contracting universe before the ‘Big Bounce’, with space time geometry that was otherwise similar to our present universe (Kennedy). Further research is in progress based on the statement made by Bojowald in his article The Role of Space time structure in effective theory and cosmology “[Loop Quantum Gravity] is still to be applied to different regimes, with cosmological ones currently being explored as the starting point” (145), the cosmological application of the Loop Quantum activity is just a preview of further glimpses into the unknown. Bojowald’s theory has been further developed by physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario to develop a simplified Loop Quantum Gravity model that gives us an interesting answer – The previous universe looked a lot like ours (Zyga). Bojowald’s model does give us a detailed mathematical model of the quantum bounce, but it does not provide with any indication of the nature of this previous universe. According to their article The Quantum nature of the Big Bang, the researchers show that the relative fluctuations of volume and momentum in the pre-bounce universe are conserved across the bounce. Upon being interviewed by Physorg, a leading science and technology website, Singh said “the twin universes will have the same laws of physics and, in particular, the same notion of time as in ours… [The previous universe] will look identical to its twin when seen from afar; one could not distinguish them” (Zyga). However Singh also emphasizes that having an identical twin universe does not necessitate that every single feature of both the universes would be the same. Further research on this model is under progress right now. Thus, we see that the Quantum “Big Bounce” model gets rid of many hurdles faced by Einstein’s GTR and is a viable theory for the origin of this universe.
Based on the “Big Bounce” and “Identical Twin” models of the universe, we can now evaluate the merits and demerits of Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument and Collin’s ‘fine tuning’ argument. As mentioned before, Craig refutes the oscillatory universe theory on the basis that every real world oscillation loses energy and henceforth, an oscillatory model of the universe would be unstable. However, if the universe is singular and nothing exists outside it, the universe cannot lose any of its energy and thereby acts an isolated system. Thus, since the energy of the universe is conserved, there is no reason why the oscillatory motion of the universe cannot go on for eternity. Plus, new cosmological models based on Loop Quantum Gravity provide us with an equal if not more possible speculation regarding the origin of the universe. There is still a possibility for a prime mover in this Oscillatory Universe model, but, the qualities of a ‘Christian’ god seem to fade away as we move further from the origin of our universe. With recent discoveries and scientific models allowing us to delve more into the history of our universe, our search for the truth or Hegel’s Geist should continue on. Plus, as talked about earlier, the formulation of a viable Oscillatory Universe model weakens Collin’s ‘fine tuning’ argument several degrees and with eternal cosmic ‘bounces’ probable, the ‘fine tuning’ argument does not necessitate an intelligent designer or a God at all.
In conclusion, the cosmological argument seems like the strongest argument for the existence of a prime mover. However, the nurturing and caring nature of this prime mover is more unlikely than likely. The ‘fine tuning’ argument provided by Collins has its merits; but it falls apart when we propose a viable universe undergoing eternal oscillations. The Loop Quantum Gravitational theory does help up consider the viability of alternate Big Bang theories, but still, it does not disprove the existence of an almighty prime mover. As of now, all we can do is delve deeper and deeper into universe’s mysteries and hope that someday the truth reveals itself to us.
Works Cited
Bojowald, Martin. "The Role of Space-time structure in effective theory and cosmology." American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, Vol. 917, Issue 1 (2007): 138-146.
Collins, Robin. "Design and The Many Worlds Hypothesis ." Craig, William Lane. Philosophy of Religion - A reader and Guide. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press Ltd., 2002. 130-148.
Craig, William Lane. "The Kalam Cosmological Arguement." Craig, William Lane. Philosophy of Religion - A Reader and Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press Ltd., 2002. 92-113.
Kennedy, Barbara. Physicist explores what happened before the Big Bang. 29 June 2007. 16 April 2009
Pandiyan, Jagadheep D. Where did the universe come from? June 2003. 16 April 2009
Rothstein, Dave. What is the Universe Expanding into? April 2003. 16 April 2009
Zyga, Lisa. Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe? 9 April 2008. 16 April 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment