<<< Rough work >>>
<< Below post will be updated Soon>>
Analog theory
Analog Theory VS the principle of letting go ...the going on principle...
To be updated if time permits :
Analog theory VS human life
Analog theory VS mother nature
Analog theory VS universal events
Analog theory VS human existence
Positive Analog Theory - ultimate theory of all times
Things tends to go on ...
Theory of expanding universe - its implication and advances with hindrances
The disagreement theory
No matter what the truth is human mind tend to find the streak of infringement of undefined flaw and dwell upon it to disagree no matter how strong the truth is.
Specially girls - they tend to oppose your thoughts no matter how much they are important to you and will still think of being worthless even if you think they are your life.
Ignorance is the best consideration
(being Diplomatic)
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Monday, June 8, 2009
What Happens After "Death"?
What Happens After "Death"?
By Adrian Cooper
Excerpt from Our Ultimate Reality
I would like to commence this section by emphatically stating an extremely important truth which everyone should know and understand beyond any possible doubt: There really is no such state as “death”.
What many people believe to be the finality of “death” is in fact no more and no less than the transition from one state of life and reality, that of the physical matter, to a state of life of a vastly finer density of the Universe, often known as the “Astral planes”, sometimes referred to as “the beyond”, the “fourth dimension” or the “afterlife”.
What they are called is of no consequence however, the fact is they do exist and for a time becomes the new home for people departing physical life, before either returning for another life on earth or progressing to the inner spheres of reality, the Mental planes, the Spirit worlds.
We will discuss the nature of the Astral planes later in this book, but first we will look at the process erroneously known as “death”.
We are all multi-dimensional beings, each of us having numerous “bodies” corresponding to our many states of “being” within the multi-dimensional Universe. These very broadly consist of the physical body, the Etheric or Energy Body, the Astral Body and the Mental bodies. We have numerous Mental or Spirit bodies, all relating to the infinite degrees and states of vibration, density and being, ranging from the very lowest to the very highest. The Astral Body is often referred to as the “Soul” and the Mental Body the immortal “Spirit”. It is the Mental Body, the immortal Spirit that is “made in the true image of God”, not the physical body as many suppose.
God is pure Spirit, and ultimately every single person exists as pure Spirit beyond all concept of form. The seat of our very “being” or Consciousness is within the Mental Body, the immortal Spirit. The Astral Body, the Soul, actually consists of both the conjoined Astral and Mental bodies, and is therefore can be more accurately referred to as the Astra-Mental Body. These subtle bodies are composed of Energy, vibrations, the nature of which is completely unique for everyone, each individual possessing a unique Energy signature by means of which they can be uniquely identified.
Within the inner spheres of reality, the Astral and Mental planes, people exist at the level of vibration of the Ether that is exactly equivalent to the level of vibration of their Astral and Mental bodies respectively. The level of vibration of the Astral and Mental Body depends in turn upon many factors, including but not limited to individual degree of ennoblement or perfection, degree to which the ego has been transcended, realisation of Spirit or “God” within, degree of unresolved karma, and most importantly the realisation of the most powerful force in the Universe; Unconditional Love.
So what actually happens when people experience physical “death”? The circumstances upon which people arrive at the end of their current physical existence obviously varies very widely, and can range from very sudden death, for example resulting from an accident or sudden illness, through death as a result of a long illness, to natural death as a result of old age; and of course there are numerous possibilities in between.
Regardless of the precise circumstances prevailing at the end of physical life, what follows is substantially the same in all cases. At the instant where the physical body ceases to function, a large amount of Vital Energy is transferred to the Etheric Body, also known as the Energy Body. The Etheric, or Energy Body also includes the Astral and Mental bodies. The Etheric Body will then, in many cases become the new “temporary” body of the recently “deceased” person. Sometimes however the recently deceased person will transition directly to the Astral worlds.
What happens next again varies from person to person and circumstance to circumstance, but is usually in the range of the following possibilities. Those who do not transition directly to the Astral worlds will, immediately after physical death, find themselves very much “alive” in their Etheric Body. A person after “death” can often fully observe everything happening around them, including all people present.
In fact what the person is “seeing” is not their actual physical surroundings, no longer having any physical senses and existing a a much higher rate of vibration and lower density as compared to the actual physical world, but is rather a very close Etheric “reflection” of those surroundings; but to all intents and purposes they seem identical.
If other people are present, for example doctors, the person might well see and hear himself or herself being pronounced “dead”. The “deceased” person can then, if desired, stay and watch what happens to their “old body”, observe the actions of the people present for example doctors, nurses and relatives, or may decide to immediately go elsewhere.
It should be noted that in this much finer state of existence as pure Energy, it is quite possible to travel anywhere in the world or indeed the entire Universe in an instant, literally at the speed of thought. The Etheric plane is a Mind world, an extension of the Astral planes and the Universe as a whole, and therefore existing beyond the boundaries and restrictions of physical space and time.
The “deceased” person often remains very close to the physical world while the level of Etheric Energy in their Etheric Body remains sufficiently high. They will very often make the most of this opportunity to visit and say goodbye to family and friends, and perhaps to visit their old home and favourite places they particularly enjoyed in physical life. Of course, living people cannot, with the exception of psychics and clairvoyants, usually “see” the “deceased” person, and usually any attempt by the deceased person to communicate with living people will fail. Very often the “deceased” person will also attend their own funeral, not only to see all family, friends and other people they knew in physical life gatherer to pay their respects, but also to realise the finality of the end of that particular physical life on Earth.
The deceased person can make the decision to transition to the Astral worlds at any time simply by desiring and willing it to happen, and by thinking of being there, but only if they realise the possibility exists. Otherwise the transition will usually take place naturally once the supply of Etheric Energy is depleted, and the dense Etheric Body will dissipate, giving way to the finer vibrations of the Astral Body, naturally enabling a transition to the appropriate level of the Astral planes in accordance with the level of perfection of the Soul, and the level of vibrations of the person generally. This will determine which part of the Astral planes they will naturally migrate to, most decent people transitioning to the mid-Astral worlds which, as well will see later in this book, are remarkably similar to the physical world that has been left behind.
The other extreme occurs when a newly deceased person transitions directly to the Astral world almost immediately after physical “death”. Sometimes they will be aware of their physical death, but very often the first thing a deceased person will be aware of is a “tunnel of light” into which they are pulled at great speed. In other cases the scenery will simply fade away from the physical world and “melt” into the Astral world almost seamlessly.
Irrespective of how the deceased person arrives in the Astral world, they will never be alone. Other Astral residents, frequently previously deceased relatives and friends, will often be there to greet them and to help them to settle into their new home. Very often the newly deceased person will arrive at, or be taken to a place in the Astral world which is effectively a “reception area” for newly arrived Souls. There they will be met by a host of helpers with the task of assisting new arrivals to settle in to their new Astral home. Such helpers specialise in all manner of cases, and are able to assist with the transition process regardless of the circumstances surrounding physical death. There are billions of people living within the Astral world, having previously experienced life from the past, present and future of Earth.
Every eventuality is fully accounted for, and no person is ever left alone in the Astral worlds after physical death. For most decent people arriving at the mid-levels of the Astral worlds, those who have led a “normal” life and had no strongly held beliefs, in particular religious beliefs, the environment is always extremely peaceful and harmonious but otherwise quite similar in many respects to the Earth environment from whence they just arrived. If the physical death was sudden, violent or due to some self-inflicted disorder such as alcoholism, or the person was ill for some time before physical death occurred, there will be the Astral equivalent of hospitals with doctors and nurses, people who might well have been doctors and nurses in a previous life on hand to assist.
Very often, because the Astral worlds can appear to be almost identical to the physical world in appearance, some people simply do not believe they have actually “died”, and therefore cannot understand what has happened. Such people can become most bewildered and confused and might require attention by specialist helpers until they can come to terms with their new state of existence in the “afterlife” of the Astral worlds.
Another situation requiring a great deal of care from Astral specialists are the cases of children, infants and babies who leave the physical world before their time. In these situations there are the equivalent of specialist nurses and carers on hand who will look after the child until he or she is old enough to join a family in the Astral worlds. There are many such families who will gladly take on the responsibility of looking after children who arrived before their own parents. Older children will usually join a family as soon as they have come to terms with their new reality and home in the Astral worlds.
Children can usually adapt to their new life in the Astral worlds much more quickly than adults, largely because they had not yet been fully indoctrinated into the ways of the physical world. Younger children might well feel at home in the Astral worlds almost immediately as it has not been very long since they originally left the Astral or Spirit worlds to be born into the physical life which they have recently departed. Such children will therefore still be of an age where they can still vividly remember their previous life in the Astral or Spirit worlds. To such infants their stay on Earth was nothing more than a very short adventure, often with a specific purpose in their own individual evolution and progress on the path.
Upon arriving in the Astral worlds most people settle in to their new home very quickly indeed, and soon create a new “life” for themselves. They will, sooner or later, completely lose interest in the physical world and their previous life associated with it. However, people living in the Astral worlds can, and very often do “visit” the physical world whenever they feel the need to, often to visit loved ones left behind. There are numerous cases of bereaved family and friends suddenly feeling the “presence” of their loved one, and in these cases it very often really is their loved one visiting for a time from the Astral worlds.
It should be mentioned that “deceased” people living in the Astral worlds will often watch over their loved ones still living in the physical world, guiding them by means of inspiration, and protecting them from inner dangers whenever possible. Because the Universe is infinite living Mind, thought is a very powerful primary Energy, and it is therefore relatively easy for people in the Astral worlds to influence the Minds of people still living in the physical world. Such influence can suddenly arrive in the Minds of people on Earth as intuition, inspiration or ideas, the recipient of such thoughts believing them to be their own thoughts and ideas. Pets, such as cats and dogs, can very often sense the presence of their deceased owners in a very powerful way.
It is also possible for people living in the Astral worlds to visit family and others in their dreams. This happens much more often than most people realise. Dreams of meeting deceased people are often very real indeed, and such contacts should always be noted, taken very seriously and any messages remembered. Everyone in the physical world leaves their body at night while in deep sleep, and Astral residents sometimes take this opportunity to meet with their loved ones “face to face” in the Astral worlds, such meetings often being remembered in the morning as a vivid lifelike dream. Again, these meetings are often very real indeed and should always be remembered and all messages received well and truly noted. Sometimes important information is passed on this way, as well as reassurances that the “deceased” person is very well, happy and content in their new Astral home.
Although it is perfectly natural, and to a reasonable extent healthy to grieve for a deceased loved one, it is most important to realise these people are not really “dead”, and have not therefore in any way ceased to exist. The loved one is now living in what is actually a truer reality than the physical world. Assuming they are living in the mid to high Astral worlds, or within the Spirit worlds, they will be experiencing an existence of pure love, light, bliss, peace and happiness on a level beyond the comprehension of most people still living on Earth.
One of the benefits of Astral Projection, which will be discussed in detail later in this book, is the ability to visit and explore the Astral worlds and to meet deceased loved ones and friends. To Astral projectors death holds no absolutely fears whatsoever, with the absolute knowing, beyond any doubts whatsoever the glorious life waiting after the final release from the confines of physical life on the physical plane in the restrictions of a physical body.
As we will also see later in this book, everyone in the Astral worlds lives at the same level, the same realm, sphere or plane as people who were of a similar nature in the physical world; similar characters, beliefs and in particular level of Spiritual development. In the mid-Astral worlds where most decent people, probably around fifty percent or more transition after physical death, there is no work, no money, no unhappiness, but rather complete peace and happiness, everyone living together in perfect harmony. People, who in the physical world were disruptive in any way, will be living in the lower Astral worlds with like Minded, similarly disruptive people, thus always preserving the complete peace and harmony of the inner Astral worlds. Of course everyone always has the opportunity to evolve from the lower Astral worlds to the inner Astral worlds once they have learned their lessons, and have attained a vibration that will enable them to co-exist with others at the same higher level of vibration.
People who have left the physical world of matter have been liberated once again, and will live and rest for a time in the Astral and Mental worlds before returning to Earth once again if necessary to begin a new physical life. Friends, relatives and loved ones should celebrate this joyfully! Death, however sad, tragic or unexpected means the liberation of a Soul from their physical body to the inner worlds of existence where they will be with like-Minded people.
Although people still living in the physical world regard those living in the Astral and Spirit worlds as “dead”, to those people who passed on to and our now living in the Astral and Spirit worlds it is the people still living in the density of the physical world, with all of the trials it brings who actually appear to be “dead” by comparison, dead to the splendours, glories, peace, harmony and liberation of the inner worlds, to which every single person will transition sooner or later.
“Death” should never be feared. It is something to anticipate when the time comes as a completely natural aspect of individual evolution, and a transition to glorious worlds of pure harmony, bliss and beauty, inhabited by like-Minded people, where none of the hardships, trials and misery that is so prevalent on Earth exists. The transition of passing to the inner, Astral worlds is a joyous time, a time for celebration.
Adrian Cooper is the author of “Our Ultimate Reality, Life, the Universe and the Destiny of Mankind”
The Angels of Death
The Angels of Death
Do Deathbed Phenomena Prove Life After Death? By Dr. Danny Penman
Source: The Daily Mail
Doctor Penny Sartori was barely halfway through her night shift at Morriston Hospital in Swansea when one of her patients began behaving in a most peculiar way.
Through the maze of equipment keeping Peter Holland alive, Dr Sartori could see him slowly regaining consciousness and becoming increasingly alert.
Peter was staring intently at the foot of his bed - and then started talking to an invisible presence.
"He suddenly regained his energy," says Dr Sartori.
"He seemed to be having a conversation with someone we could not see. After a while, a beautiful peaceful smile crossed his face and he relaxed completely.
"When his family arrived, he told them that he'd been visited by his sister in the night and that they'd had a long chat.
"The strange thing was, his sister had died the week before, but nobody had dared tell him because they thought the shock might kill him. There was absolutely no way he could have known about his sister's death."
It was in that moment, says Dr Sartori, that she realised Peter was going to die, no matter how much medical attention he received.
"When a patient says that they have been 'visited' by a dead loved one, you know that their time has come," she says.
"It's commonly accepted by nurses and we see it quite a lot. Nurses will tell each other that 'he's just had a visit so he'll be off soon'."
Indeed, shortly afterwards, 75-year-old Peter Holland did die.
Such deathbed phenomena, of the type experienced by Mr Holland, are surprisingly common.
According to recent research at King's College London, around 10 per cent of the terminally ill or those caring for them report some kind of mysterious, inexplicable event that gives them a glimpse of an afterlife.
Patients may report visits from deceased loved ones or experience visions of a heavenly realm.
While such deathbed phenomena are undoubtedly comforting for the dying and their loved ones, could they really shed light on the vexed question of whether there is life after death? It seems so.
Over the past few years, a growing number of scientists have begun studying such events and have concluded that many of them defy all rational understanding.
Professor Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist at King's College London, who leads the research team investigating the phenomena, says the sheer number of reports he has examined makes for compelling evidence: "One possible interpretation of the data is that there really is life after death," he says, "while another would be that something paranormal, such as Extra-sensory perception (ESP), is behind them."
So how exactly do these haunting experiences manifest themselves?
3 Types of Deathbed Phenomena
"Deathbed phenomena come in three forms," says Professor Fenwick.
"The dying can receive visits from dead loved ones or they may have visions of lights and other worlds.
"They may experience strange coincidences such as receiving a visit from a relative they did not know had died.
"Their loved ones and family may experience inexplicable events such as clocks stopping or strange lights appearing around the patient. Others have seen a translucent shape leave the body at the time of death.
"You don't need a religion or a belief system to believe in these phenomena; you just have to look at the data and make up your own mind."
Of course it's easy to dismiss anecdotal cases like that of Peter Holland, and the "visit" from his dead sister.
Sceptics argue that such apparitions result from a heady cocktail of a patient's faulty memory, powerful painkillers and the desire to believe in an afterlife at an intolerably stressful time.
Lewis Wolpert, Emeritus Professor of biology at University College London, denounces deathbed phenomena as mere delusions.
"Such stories are the result of hallucinations, wishful thinking or coincidence," he says.
"There is no evidence for God or life after death. I have no doubt that it must be reassuring for those who believe in these things.
"On the whole, religious people do tend to be happier. I would love to be religious and think that there was a heaven - but it simply doesn't exist."
Doesn't exist? Or hasn't yet been scientifically proven?
For despite the scepticism of the atheists, there remain many deathbed encounters that defy easy answers. And these are the cases that Professor Fenwick's team are studying.
Linda Jacobs's experience is typical.
Her father was terminally ill at a Manchester hospital, but as the family gathered around his bedside for what they believed was his last night, he became increasingly alert.
"He kept saying 'move out of that smoke'," says Linda. "He then began smiling and laughing as though he was meeting with people we could not see.
"He then turned and looked at my mother and said 'your Mum is here! What on earth is she doing here?'" But the figure wasn't really there, for one very good reason. She had died earlier in the week, but the family had decided to keep the news secret for fear of causing further upset.
Moments later, Linda's father also passed away - with a smile on his face.
What can account for such mysterious events Linda is convinced that it provides evidence for an afterlife.
And her case is far from unique. The story of Kate Batchelor, a sheep farmer in the Western Isles of Scotland, is equally puzzling. Her brother died in hospital, and a friend was dispatched to tell her the news.
When they reached the farmhouse, they were greeted by Kate, who said: "I know why you've come. I heard him calling me. He was saying 'Kate, Kate' as he passed over."
She even knew the exact time her brother had died.
Of course not all of the cases being studied by Professor Fenwick are so dramatic.
Far more common are stories involving clocks or other household items that suddenly began malfunctioning at the precise time that a person passed away.
"One lady told me that all of the clocks in her house stopped working at the time of her husband's death. They started again a week later," says Prof Fenwick.
Other cases have involved mobile phones, video recorders, and TVs that all mysteriously ceased to function at the moment of a loved- one's death, only to resurrect themselves shortly after. Pets, too, can mysteriously fall ill or even die at the same time as their owner.
These, too, could be dismissed as mere coincidence. But far less easy to rationalise are cases where people have witnessed the precise moment of an individual's death, and have seen mysterious shapes emerge from the body, or circle nearby.
For example, one acquaintance of Professor Fenwick's, a GP from New Zealand, went to the aid of a golfer who suffered a sudden, and overwhelming, heart attack.
"As he was going to help, he saw what he described as a white form which seemed to rise and separate from the body," says Professor Fenwick.
Even more dramatic was the case of Diane Smyth, from Harlow in Essex, who recalls the time she sat with her elderly father as he died.
As she awoke in the darkened room, she noticed something strange hovering above her father's body. As her eyes focused on the mysterious shape, she couldn't help but notice "a flame licking the top of the wall against the ceiling".
Diane says: "I saw a plume of smoke rising, like the vapour from a snuffed-out candle. It was being thrown off by a single blade of phosphorous light and was indescribably beautiful. It seemed to express perfect love and peace.
"I eventually switched on the room light. The mysterious light vanished and the room was the same as always on a November morning, cold and cheerless, with no sound of breathing from Dad's bed. His body was still warm."
Professor Fenwick hopes that research into these bizarre apparitions will not merely offer insights into the paranormal but will help us come to terms with the process of dying and of death.
He plans to produce a textbook for doctors and nurses caring for the terminally ill. It will be the 21st century equivalent of the Ars Moriendi, the 15th century classic on the art of dying, which described how best to prepare for death.
A common thread runs through many of Professor Fenwick's case studies, and he has now been able to build up a tentative picture of what he believes happens in the hours before death.
Often the first thing that those close to death experience is the realisation that there are friendly spirits in the room, who arrive with the express purpose of carrying them to another realm. As the patient becomes more aware of their presence, fear turns to happiness and eventually bliss.
These spirits will often sit for hours comforting the dying person as their body progressively shuts down and dies.
As part of this process, the spirits precipitate a review of your life - including all of its failings - that enables a dying patient to resolve any lingering conflicts with friends and loved ones.
It would appear that when this process is complete then death quickly follows. It's almost as if, in the final moment of peace, the body finally offers up the ghost.
So what advice can Professor Fenwick give us about preparing for death?
He says: "You should be ready to die at a moment's notice. Those with a clear conscience die well. Those who are angry or frustrated have a much more difficult death." Just as there is a good way to live, it seems there is also a good way to die.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Next >> human cycle, its nature and being a Part of community
Next >> human cycle, its nature and being a Part of community
Be prepared for the next post...a new question on Being a Part of human community
Truth of Life... The Human Existence
Truth of Life... The Human Existence
Where is finding the truth of life ... some doing it and most don't ...
Where are we and where will we go... ( the humans)
People finding their truth in many things from finding God to the theory for existence of Universe..
Where have we been till now no one Knows... most people are still enjoying their life...
thinking about the place where they live as the truth ...but there might be something hidden
being made to be hidden ... which could be a dreamworld outside or a nightmare where we are now living...
getting to the most toughest part and reality of Life itself ... no one knows exaclty ,,,,
what is the meaning to the existence of life...why humanity exists...(we know it as per the given records, some sayings as per the experience gained on EARTH) but what if it is nothing when being compared to the truth that lies in the Universe... we not knowing anything... but all still enjoying the worldly desires...not knowing the exact truth of Universe.
Why are we here and what for ... What part are we playing in the Universe...its not a matter what we are doing on Earth but on being a Part of Universe ...a tiny atomic little part as compared to universe... are we aware of the truth of Universe...its origin ...its end ... or its continuation Process which is going on ...
People do Leave everything to God ... all existentialism is supposed to be by God ... but if it is then there could be multiple Universe out there... That means Universe can be created and destroyed at will... so what will be there in those solar systems of other Universe...
Even if we say God do not exist ...the puzzle still goes on ... What is the purpose of the Existence of Universe ...and what for do it exist ...
Through This POST I am referring to the whole Mankind ...for finding the truth of existence ... so that some more interest could be made to all not even thinking of all the things that do exist in reality....
Everything is being ignored ... this could be due to limitations on human ... their Memory, thinking ability or some more things that we do not want to acknowledge...
On learning from Physics, Chemistry, Biology- botany, zoology, etc , Mathematics, theology, Philosophy, Metaphysics, electronics, computer languages to english literature to language, from the astrophysics to the nuclear physics, from real analysis to number theory , calculus to derivatives... what have we found in these or are we about to find another theory to describe EARTH and Planets revolving round the Sun or the Human nature to their Psychic nature.
But what comes under finding our existence in Universe ....least bothered topic... just thinking about the practical problems of life ...not clinging to the real problems that could be by not knowing the exact truth of Outside world,
What can be there , What is the reason for the existence of Humanity and more important the Existence of Universe... we having brains with limitations but we could still work in groups to find the exact solution ... like a huge machine with working parts together so as to perform a particular task.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Items from Truth journal
New Sources : Describing earlier posts : Dimension in old Dimension
Source: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe
-William Lane
Introduction
"The first question which should rightly be asked," wrote G.W.F. Leibniz, is "Why is there something rather than nothing?"[1] This question does seem to possess a profound existential force, which has been felt by some of mankind's greatest thinkers. According to Aristotle, philosophy begins with a sense of wonder about the world, and the most profound question a man can ask concerns the origin of the universe.[2] In his biography of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Norman Malcolm reports that Wittgenstein said that he sometimes had a certain experience which could best be described by saying that "when I have it, I wonder at the existence of the world. I am then inclined to use such phrases as 'How extraordinary that anything should exist!'"[3] Similarly, one contemporary philosopher remarks, ". . . My mind often seems to reel under the immense significance this question has for me. That anything exists at all does seem to me a matter for the deepest awe."[4]
Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Second Premiss Clearly, the crucial premiss in this argument is (2), and two independent arguments are offered in support of it. Let us therefore turn first to an examination of the supporting arguments.
First Supporting Argument
In order to understand (2.1), we need to understand the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Crudely put, a potential infinite is a collection which is increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never gets there. Such a collection is really indefinite, not infinite. The sign of this sort of infinity, which is used in calculus, is ¥. An actual infinite is a collection in which the number of members really is infinite. The collection is not growing toward infinity; it is infinite, it is "complete." The sign of this sort of infinity, which is used in set theory to designate sets which have an infinite number of members, such as {1, 2, 3, . . .}, is À0. Now (2.11) maintains, not that a potentially infinite number of things cannot exist, but that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. For if an actually infinite number of things could exist, this would spawn all sorts of absurdities.
Given the truth of premisses (1) and (2), it logically follows that (3) the universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.
Summary and Conclusion
In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.
Source: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe
-William Lane
The kalam cosmological argument, by showing that the universe began to exist, demonstrates that the world is not a necessary being and, therefore, not self-explanatory with respect to its existence. Two philosophical arguments and two scientific confirmations are presented in support of the beginning of the universe. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe.Source: "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe." Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991): 85-96.
Introduction
"The first question which should rightly be asked," wrote G.W.F. Leibniz, is "Why is there something rather than nothing?"[1] This question does seem to possess a profound existential force, which has been felt by some of mankind's greatest thinkers. According to Aristotle, philosophy begins with a sense of wonder about the world, and the most profound question a man can ask concerns the origin of the universe.[2] In his biography of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Norman Malcolm reports that Wittgenstein said that he sometimes had a certain experience which could best be described by saying that "when I have it, I wonder at the existence of the world. I am then inclined to use such phrases as 'How extraordinary that anything should exist!'"[3] Similarly, one contemporary philosopher remarks, ". . . My mind often seems to reel under the immense significance this question has for me. That anything exists at all does seem to me a matter for the deepest awe."[4]
Why does something exist instead of nothing? Leibniz answered this question by arguing that something exists rather than nothing because a necessary being exists which carries within itself its reason for existence and is the sufficient reason for the existence of all contingent being.[5]
Although Leibniz (followed by certain contemporary philosophers) regarded the non- existence of a necessary being as logically impossible, a more modest explication of necessity of existence in terms of what he calls "factual necessity" has been given by John Hick: a necessary being is an eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible being.[6] Leibniz, of course, identified the necessary being as God. His critics, however, disputed this identification, contending that the material universe could itself be assigned the status of a necessary being. "Why," queried David Hume, "may not the material universe be the necessary existent Being, according to this pretended explanation of necessity?"[7] Typically, this has been precisely the position of the atheist. Atheists have not felt compelled to embrace the view that the universe came into being out of nothing for no reason at all; rather they regard the universe itself as a sort of factually necessary being: the universe is eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible. As Russell neatly put it, " . . . The universe is just there, and that's all."[8]
Does Leibniz's argument therefore leave us in a rational impasse, or might there not be some further resources available for untangling the riddle of the existence of the world? It seems to me that there are. It will be remembered that an essential property of a necessary being is eternality. If then it could be made plausible that the universe began to exist and is not therefore eternal, one would to that extent at least have shown the superiority of theism as a rational world view.
Now there is one form of the cosmological argument, much neglected today but of great historical importance, that aims precisely at the demonstration that the universe had a beginning in time.[9] Originating in the efforts of Christian theologians to refute the Greek doctrine of the eternity of matter, this argument was developed into sophisticated formulations by medieval Islamic and Jewish theologians, who in turn passed it back to the Latin West. The argument thus has a broad inter- sectarian appeal, having been defended by Muslims, Jews, and Christians both Catholic and Protestant.
This argument, which I have called the kalam cosmological argument, can be exhibited as follows:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of itsLet us examine this argument more closely.
existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an
actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of
past events cannot be actually
infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.
Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Second Premiss Clearly, the crucial premiss in this argument is (2), and two independent arguments are offered in support of it. Let us therefore turn first to an examination of the supporting arguments.
First Supporting Argument
In order to understand (2.1), we need to understand the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Crudely put, a potential infinite is a collection which is increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never gets there. Such a collection is really indefinite, not infinite. The sign of this sort of infinity, which is used in calculus, is ¥. An actual infinite is a collection in which the number of members really is infinite. The collection is not growing toward infinity; it is infinite, it is "complete." The sign of this sort of infinity, which is used in set theory to designate sets which have an infinite number of members, such as {1, 2, 3, . . .}, is À0. Now (2.11) maintains, not that a potentially infinite number of things cannot exist, but that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. For if an actually infinite number of things could exist, this would spawn all sorts of absurdities.
Perhaps the best way to bring home the truth of (2.11) is by means of an illustration. Let me use one of my favorites, Hilbert's Hotel, a product of the mind of the great German mathematician, David Hilbert. Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full." But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. "But of course!" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be? The proprietor just added the new guest's name to the register and gave him his keys-how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before? But the situation becomes even stranger. For suppose an infinity of new guests show up the desk, asking for a room. "Of course, of course!" says the proprietor, and he proceeds to shift the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and so on out to infinity, always putting each former occupant into the room number twice his own. As a result, all the odd numbered rooms become vacant, and the infinity of new guests is easily accommodated. And yet, before they came, all the rooms were full! And again, strangely enough, the number of guests in the hotel is the same after the infinity of new guests check in as before, even though there were as many new guests as old guests. In fact, the proprietor could repeat this process infinitely many times and yet there would never be one single person more in the hotel than before.
But Hilbert's Hotel is even stranger than the German mathematician gave it out to be. For suppose some of the guests start to check out. Suppose the guest in room #1 departs. Is there not now one less person in the hotel? Not according to the mathematicians-but just ask the woman who makes the beds! Suppose the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . check out. In this case an infinite number of people have left the hotel, but according to the mathematicians there are no less people in the hotel-but don't talk to that laundry woman! In fact, we could have every other guest check out of the hotel and repeat this process infinitely many times, and yet there would never be any less people in the hotel. But suppose instead the persons in room number 4, 5, 6, . . . checked out. At a single stroke the hotel would be virtually emptied, the guest register reduced to three names, and the infinite converted to finitude. And yet it would remain true that the same number of guests checked out this time as when the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . checked out. Can anyone sincerely believe that such a hotel could exist in reality? These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things.
That takes us to (2.12). The truth of this premiss seems fairly obvious. If the universe never began to exist, then prior to the present event there have existed an actually infinite number of previous events. Hence, a beginningless series of events in time entails the existence of an actually infinite number of things, namely, past events.
Given the truth of (2.11) and (2.12), the conclusion (2.13) logically follows. The series of past events must be finite and have a beginning. But since the universe is not distinct from the series of events, it follows that the universe began to exist.
At this point, we might find it profitable to consider several objections that might be raised against the argument. First let us consider objections to (2.11). Wallace Matson objects that the premiss must mean that an actually infinite number of things is logically impossible; but it is easy to show that such a collection is logically possible. For example, the series of negative numbers {. . . -3, -2, -1} is an actually infinite collection with no first member.[10] Matson's error here lies in thinking that (2.11) means to assert the logical impossibility of an actually infinite number of things. What the premiss expresses is the real or factual impossibility of an actual infinite. To illustrate the difference between real and logical possibility: there is no logical impossibility in something's coming to exist without a cause, but such a circumstance may well be really or metaphysically impossible. In the same way, (2.11) asserts that the absurdities entailed in the real existence of an actual infinite show that such an existence is metaphysically impossible. Hence, one could grant that in the conceptual realm of mathematics one can, given certain conventions and axioms, speak consistently about infinite sets of numbers, but this in no way implies that an actually infinite number of things is really possible. One might also note that the mathematical school of intuitionism denies that even the number series is actually infinite (they take it to be potentially infinite only), so that appeal to number series as examples of actual infinites is a moot procedure.
The late J.L. Mackie also objected to (2.11), claiming that the absurdities are resolved by noting that for infinite groups the axiom "the whole is greater than its part" does not hold, as it does for finite groups.[11] Similarly, Quentin Smith comments that once we understand that an infinite set has a proper subset which has the same number of members as the set itself, the purportedly absurd situations become "perfectly believable."[12] But to my mind, it is precisely this feature of infinite set theory which, when translated into the realm of the real, yields results which are perfectly incredible, for example, Hilbert's Hotel. Moreover, not all the absurdities stem from infinite set theory's denial of Euclid's axiom: the absurdities illustrated by guests checking out of the hotel stem from the self-contradictory results when the inverse operations of subtraction or division are performed using transfinite numbers. Here the case against an actually infinite collection of things becomes decisive.
Finally one might note the objection of Sorabji, who maintains that illustrations such as Hilbert's Hotel involve no absurdity. In order to understand what is wrong with the kalam argument, he asks us to envision two parallel columns beginning at the same point and stretching away into the infinite distance, one the column of past years and the other the column of past days. The sense in which the column of past days is no larger than the column of past years, says Sorabji, is that the column of days will not "stick out" beyond the far end of the other column, since neither column has a far end. Now in the case of Hilbert's Hotel there is the temptation to think that some unfortunate resident at the far end will drop off into space. But there is no far end: the line of residents will not stick out beyond the far end of the line of rooms. Once this is seen, the outcome is just an explicable- even if a surprising and exhilarating- truth about infinity.[13] Now Sorabji is certainly correct, as we have seen, that Hilbert's Hotel illustrates an explicable truth about the nature of the actual infinite. If an actually infinite number of things could exist, a Hilbert's Hotel would be possible. But Sorabji seems to fail to understand the heart of the paradox: I, for one, experience no temptation to think of people dropping off the far end of the hotel, for there is none, but I do have difficulty believing that a hotel in which all the rooms are occupied can accommodate more guests. Of course, the line of guests will not stick out beyond the line of rooms, but if all of those infinite rooms already have guests in them, then can moving those guests about really create empty rooms? Sorabji's own illustration of the columns of past years and days I find not a little disquieting: if we divide the columns into foot-long segments and mark one column as the years and the other as the days, then one column is as long as the other and yet for every foot-length segment in the column of years, 365 segments of equal length are found in the column of days! These paradoxical results can be avoided only if such actually infinite collections can exist only in the imagination, not in reality. In any case, the Hilbert's Hotel illustration is not exhausted by dealing only with the addition of new guests, for the subtraction of guests results in absurdities even more intractable. Sorabji's analysis says nothing to resolve these. Hence, it seems to me that the objections to premiss (2.11) are less plausible than the premiss itself.
With regard to (2.12), the most frequent objection is that the past ought to be regarded as a potential infinite only, not an actual infinite. This was Aquinas's position versus Bonaventure, and the contemporary philosopher Charles Hartshorne seems to side with Thomas on this issue.[14] Such a position is, however, untenable. The future is potentially infinite, since it does not exist; but the past is actual in a way the future is not, as evidenced by the fact that we have traces of the past in the present, but no traces of the future. Hence, if the series of past events never began to exist, there must have been an actually infinite number of past events.
The objections to either premiss therefore seem to be less compelling than the premisses themselves. Together they imply that the universe began to exist. Hence, I conclude that this argument furnishes good grounds for accepting the truth of premiss (2) that the universe began to exist.
Second Supporting Argument
The second argument (2.2) for the beginning of the universe is based on the impossibility of forming an actual infinite by successive addition. This argument is distinct from the first in that it does not deny the possibility of the existence of an actual infinite, but the possibility of its being formed by successive addition.
Premiss (2.21) is the crucial step in the argument. One cannot form an actually infinite collection of things by successively adding one member after another. Since one can always add one more before arriving at infinity, it is impossible to reach actual infinity. Sometimes this is called the impossibility of "counting to infinity" or "traversing the infinite." It is important to understand that this impossibility has nothing to do with the amount of time available: it belongs to the nature of infinity that it cannot be so formed.
Now someone might say that while an infinite collection cannot be formed by beginning at a point and adding members, nevertheless an infinite collection could be formed by never beginning but ending at a point, that is to say, ending at a point after having added one member after another from eternity. But this method seems even more unbelievable than the first method. If one cannot count to infinity, how can one count down from infinity? If one cannot traverse the infinite by moving in one direction, how can one traverse it by simply moving in the opposite direction?
Indeed, the idea of a beginningness series ending in the present seems to be absurd. To give just one illustration: suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting from eternity and is now finishing: . . ., -3, -2, -1, 0. We could ask, why did he not finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should already have finished by then. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will have already finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This illustrates the fact that the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition is equally impossible whether one proceeds to or from infinity.
Premiss (2.22) presupposes a dynamical view of time according to which events are actualized in serial fashion, one after another. The series of events is not a sort of timelessly subsisting world-line which appears successively in consciousness. Rather becoming is real and essential to temporal process. Now this view of time is not without its challengers, but to consider their objections in this article would take us too far afield.[15] In this piece, we must rest content with the fact that we are arguing on common ground with our ordinary intuitions of temporal becoming and in agreement with a good number of contemporary philosophers of time and space.
Given the truth of (2.21) and (2.22), the conclusion (2.23) logically follows. If the universe did not begin to exist a finite time ago, then the present moment could never arrive. But obviously, it has arrived. Therefore, we know that the universe is finite in the past and began to exist.
Again, it would be profitable to consider various objections that have been offered against this reasoning. Against (2.21), Mackie objects that the argument illicitly assumes an infinitely distant starting point in the past and then pronounces it impossible to travel from that point to today. But there would in an infinite past be no starting point, not even an infinitely distant one. Yet from any given point in the infinite past, there is only a finite distance to the present.[16] Now it seems to me that Mackie's allegation that the argument presupposes an infinitely distant starting point is entirely groundless. The beginningless character of the series only serves to accentuate the difficulty of its being formed by successive addition. The fact that there is no beginning at all, not even an infinitely distant one, makes the problem more, not less, nettlesome. And the point that from any moment in the infinite past there is only a finite temporal distance to the present may be dismissed as irrelevant. The question is not how any finite portion of the temporal series can be formed, but how the whole infinite series can be formed. If Mackie thinks that because every segment of the series can be formed by successive addition therefore the whole series can be so formed, then he is simply committing the fallacy of composition.
Sorabji similarly objects that the reason it is impossible to count down from infinity is because counting involves by nature taking a starting number, which is lacking in this case. But completing an infinite lapse of years involves no starting year and is, hence, possible.[17] But this response is clearly inadequate, for, as we have seen, the years of an infinite past could be enumerated by the negative numbers, in which case a completed infinity of years would, indeed, entail a beginningless countdown from infinity. Sorabji anticipates this rebuttal, however, and claims that such a backwards countdown is possible in principle and therefore no logical barrier has been exhibited to the elapsing of an infinity of past years. Again, however, the question I am posing is not whether there is a logical contradiction in such a notion, but whether such a countdown is not metaphysically absurd. For we have seen that such a countdown should at any point already have been completed. But Sorabji is again ready with a response: to say the countdown should at any point already be over confuses counting an infinity of numbers with counting all the numbers. At any given point in the past, the eternal counter will have already counted an infinity of negative numbers, but that does not entail that he will have counted all the negative numbers. I do not think the argument makes this alleged equivocation, and this may be made clear by examining the reason why our eternal counter is supposedly able to complete a count of the negative numbers ending at zero. In order to justify the possibility of this intuitively impossible feat, the argument's opponent appeals to the so- called Principle of Correspondence used in set theory to determine whether two sets are equivalent (that is, have the same number of members) by matching the members of one set with the members of the other set and vice versa. On the basis of this principle the objector argues that since the counter has lived, say, an infinite number of years and since the set of past years can be put into a one- to-one correspondence with the set of negative numbers, it follows that by counting one number a year an eternal counter would complete a countdown of the negative numbers by the present year. If we were to ask why the counter would not finish next year or in a hundred years, the objector would respond that prior to the present year an infinite number of years will have already elapsed, so that by the Principle of Correspondence, all the numbers should have been counted by now. But this reasoning backfires on the objector: for, as we have seen, on this account the counter should at any point in the past have already finished counting all the numbers, since a one-to-one correspondence exists between the years of the past and the negative numbers. Thus, there is no equivocation between counting an infinity of numbers and counting all the numbers. But at this point a deeper absurdity bursts in view: for suppose there were another counter who counted at a rate of one negative number per day. According to the Principle of Correspondence, which underlies infinite set theory and transfinite arithmetic, both of our eternal counters will finish their countdowns at the same moment, even though one is counting at a rate 365 times faster than the other! Can anyone believe that such scenarios can actually obtain in reality, but do not rather represent the outcome of an imaginary game being played in a purely conceptual realm according to adopted logical conventions and axioms?
As for premiss (2.22), many thinkers have objected that we need not regard the past as a beginningless infinite series with an end in the present. Popper, for example, admits that the set of all past events is actually infinite, but holds that the series of past events is potentially infinite. This may be seen by beginning in the present and numbering the events backwards, thus forming a potential infinite. Therefore, the problem of an actual infinite's being formed by successive addition does not arise.[18] Similarly, Swinburne muses that it is dubious whether a completed infinite series with no beginning but an end makes sense, but he proposes to solve the problem by beginning in the present and regressing into the past, so that the series of past events would have no end and would therefore not be a completed infinite.[19] This objection, however, clearly confuses the mental regress of counting with the real progress of the temporal series of events itself. Numbering the series from the present backwards only shows that if there are an infinite number of past events, then we can denumerate an infinite number of past events. But the problem is, how can this infinite collection of events come to be formed by successive addition? How we mentally conceive the series does not in any way affect the ontological character of the series itself as a series with no beginning but an end, or in other words, as an actual infinite completed by successive addition.
Once again, then, the objections to (2.21) and (2.22) seem less plausible than the premisses themselves. Together they imply (2.23), or that the universe began to exist.
First Scientific Confirmation
These purely philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe have received remarkable confirmation from discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics during this century. These confirmations might be summarized under two heads: the confirmation from the expansion of the universe and the confirmation from thermodynamic properties of the universe.
With regard to the first, Hubble's discovery in 1929 of the red-shift in the light from distant galaxies began a revolution in astronomy perhaps as significant as the Copernican revolution. Prior to this time the universe as a whole was conceived to be static; but the startling conclusion to which Hubble was led was that the red-shift is due to the fact that the universe is in fact expanding. The staggering implication of this fact is that as one traces the expansion back in time, the universe becomes denser and denser until one reaches a point of infinite density from which the universe began to expand. The upshot of Hubble's discovery was that at some point in the finite past-probably around 15 billion years ago-the entire known universe was contracted down to a single mathematical point which marked the origin of the universe. That initial explosion has come to be known as the "Big Bang." Four of the world's most prominent astronomers described that event in these words:
The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere.[20]This event that marked the beginning of the universe becomes all the more amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."[21] Thus, what the Big Bang model of the universe seems to require is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing.
Some theorists have attempted to avoid the absolute beginning of the universe implied by the Big Bang theory by speculating that the universe may undergo an infinite series of expansions and contractions. There are, however, good grounds for doubting the adequacy of such an oscillating model of the universe: (i) The oscillating model appears to be physically impossible. For all the talk about such models, the fact seems to be that they are only theoretically, but not physically possible. As the late Professor Tinsley of Yale explains, in oscillating models "even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, there is no known physics to reverse the collapse and bounce back to a new expansion. The physics seems to say that those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, then end."[22] In order for the oscillating model to be correct, it would seem that the known laws of physics would have to be revised. (ii) The oscillating model seems to be observationally untenable. Two facts of observational astronomy appear to run contrary to the oscillating model. First, the observed homogeneity of matter distribution throughout the universe seems unaccountable on an oscillating model. During the contraction phase of such a model, black holes begin to gobble up surrounding matter, resulting in an inhomogeneous distribution of matter. But there is no known mechanism to "iron out" these inhomogeneities during the ensuing expansion phase. Thus, the homogeneity of matter observed throughout the universe would remain unexplained. Second, the density of the universe appears to be insufficient for the re-contraction of the universe. For the oscillating model to be even possible, it is necessary that the universe be sufficiently dense such that gravity can overcome the force of the expansion and pull the universe back together again. However, according to the best estimates, if one takes into account both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos) as well as any possible contribution of neutrino particles to total mass, the universe is still only about one-half that needed for re-contraction.[23] Moreover, recent work on calculating the speed and deceleration of the expansion confirms that the universe is expanding at, so to speak, "escape velocity" and will not therefore re-contract. According to Sandage and Tammann, "Hence, we are forced to decide that . . . it seems inevitable that the Universe will expand forever"; they conclude, therefore, that "the Universe has happened only once."[24]
Second Scientific Confirmation
As if this were not enough, there is a second scientific confirmation of the beginning of the universe based on the thermodynamic properties of various cosmological models. According to the second law of thermodynamics, processes taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. Now our interest is in what implications this has when the law is applied to the universe as a whole. For the universe is a gigantic closed system, since it is everything there is and no energy is being fed into it from without. The second law seems to imply that, given enough time, the universe will reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, known as the "heat death" of the universe. This death may be hot or cold, depending on whether the universe will expand forever or eventually re-contract. On the one hand, if the density of the universe is great enough to overcome the force of the expansion, then the universe will re-contract into a hot fireball. As the universe contracts, the stars burn more rapidly until they finally explode or evaporate. As the universe grows denser, the black holes begin to gobble up everything around them and begin themselves to coalesce until all the black holes finally coalesce into one gigantic black hole which is coextensive with the universe, from which it will never re-emerge. On the other hand, if the density of the universe is insufficient to halt the expansion, as seems more likely, then the galaxies will turn all their gas into stars and the stars will burn out. At 10[30 ]years the universe will consist of 90% dead stars, 9% supermassive black holes, and l% atomic matter. Elementary particle physics suggests that thereafter protons will decay into electrons and positrons, so that space will be filled with a rarefied gas so thin that the distance between an electron and a positron will be about the size of the present galaxy. At 10[100] years some scientists believe that the black holes themselves will dissipate into radiation and elementary particles. Eventually all the matter in the dark, cold, ever-expanding universe will be reduced to an ultra-thin gas of elementary particles and radiation. Equilibrium will prevail throughout, and the entire universe will be in its final state, from which no change will occur.
Now the question which needs to be asked is this: if, given sufficient time, the universe will reach heat death, then why is it not now in a state of heat death if it has existed for infinite time? If the universe did not begin to exist, then it should now be in a state of equilibrium. Some theorists have suggested that the universe escapes final heat death by oscillating from eternity past to eternity future. But we have already seen that such a model seems to be physically and observationally untenable. But even if we waive those considerations and suppose that the universe does oscillate, the fact is that the thermodynamic properties of this model imply the very beginning of the universe which its proponents seek to avoid. For the thermodynamic properties of an oscillating model are such that the universe expands farther and farther with each successive cycle. Therefore, as one traces the expansions back in time, they grow smaller and smaller. As one scientific team explains, "The effect of entropy production will be to enlarge the cosmic scale, from cycle to cycle. . . . Thus, looking back in time, each cycle generated less entropy, had a smaller cycle time, and had a smaller cycle expansion factor than the cycle that followed it."[25] Novikov and Zeldovich of the Institute of Applied Mathematics of the USSR Academy of Sciences therefore conclude, "The multicycle model has an infinite future, but only a finite past."[26] As another writer points out, the oscillating model of the universe thus still requires an origin of the universe prior to the smallest cycle.[27]
So whatever scenario one selects for the future of the universe, thermodynamics implies that the universe began to exist. According to physicist P.C.W. Davies, the universe must have been created a finite time ago and is in the process of winding down. Prior to the creation, the universe simply did not exist. Therefore, Davies concludes, even though we may not like it, we must conclude that the universe's energy was somehow simply "put in" at the creation as an initial condition.[28]
We therefore have both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation for the beginning of the universe. On this basis I think that we are amply justified in concluding the truth of premiss (2) that the universe began to exist.
First Premiss
Premiss (1) strikes me as relatively non-controversial. It is based on the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of nothing. Hence, any argument for the principle is apt to be less obvious than the principle itself. Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause; he only denied that one could prove the obviously true causal principle.[29] With regard to the universe, if originally there were absolutely nothing-no God, no space, no time-, then how could the universe possibly come to exist? The truth of the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit is so obvious that I think we are justified in foregoing an elaborate defense of the argument's first premiss.
Nevertheless, some thinkers, exercised to avoid the theism implicit in this premiss within the present context, have felt driven to deny its truth. In order to avoid its theistic implications, Davies presents a scenario which, he confesses, "should not be taken too seriously," but which seems to have a powerful attraction for Davies.[30] He has reference to a quantum theory of gravity according to which spacetime itself could spring uncaused into being out of absolutely nothing. While admitting that there is "still no satisfactory theory of quantum gravity," such a theory "would allow spacetime to be created and destroyed spontaneously and uncaused in the same way that particles are created and destroyed spontaneously and uncaused. The theory would entail a certain mathematically determined probability that, for instance, a blob of space would appear where none existed before. Thus, spacetime could pop out of nothingness as the result of a causeless quantum transition."[31]
Now in fact particle pair production furnishes no analogy for this radical ex nihilo becoming, as Davies seems to imply. This quantum phenomenon, even if an exception to the principle that every event has a cause, provides no analogy to something's coming into being out of nothing. Though physicists speak of this as particle pair creation and annihilation, such terms are philosophically misleading, for all that actually occurs is conversion of energy into matter or vice versa. As Davies admits, "The processes described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of pre- existing energy into material form."[32] Hence, Davies greatly misleads his reader when he claims that "Particles . . . can appear out of nowhere without specific causation" and again, "Yet the world of quantum physics routinely produces something for nothing."[33] On the contrary, the world of quantum physics never produces something for nothing.
But to consider the case on its own merits: quantum gravity is so poorly understood that the period prior to 10[-43] sec, which this theory hopes to describe, has been compared by one wag to the regions on the maps of the ancient cartographers marked "Here there be dragons": it can easily be filled with all sorts of fantasies. In fact, there seems to be no good reason to think that such a theory would involve the sort of spontaneous becoming ex nihilo which Davies suggests. A quantum theory of gravity has the goal of providing a theory of gravitation based on the exchange of particles (gravitons) rather than the geometry of space, which can then be brought into a Grand Unification Theory that unites all the forces of nature into a supersymmetrical state in which one fundamental force and a single kind of particle exist. But there seems to be nothing in this which suggests the possibility of spontaneous becoming ex nihilo.
Indeed, it is not at all clear that Davies's account is even intelligible. What can be meant, for example, by the claim that there is a mathematical probability that nothingness should spawn a region of spacetime "where none existed before?" It cannot mean that given enough time a region of spacetime would pop into existence at a certain place, since neither place nor time exist apart from spacetime. The notion of some probability of something's coming out of nothing thus seems incoherent.
I am reminded in this connection of some remarks made by A.N. Prior concerning an argument put forward by Jonathan Edwards against something's coming into existence uncaused. This would be impossible, said Edwards, because it would then be inexplicable why just any and everything cannot or does not come to exist uncaused. One cannot respond that only things of a certain nature come into existence uncaused, since prior to their existence they have no nature which could control their coming to be. Prior made a cosmological application of Edwards's reasoning by commenting on the steady state model's postulating the continuous creation of hydrogen atoms ex nihilo:
It is no part of Hoyle's theory that this process is causeless, but I want to be more definite about this, and to say that if it is causeless, then what is alleged to happen is fantastic and incredible. If it is possible for objects-objects, now, which really are objects, "substances endowed with capacities"-to start existing without a cause, then it is incredible that they should all turn out to be objects of the same sort, namely, hydrogen atoms. The peculiar nature of hydrogen atoms cannot possibly be what makes such starting-to-exist possible for them but not for objects of any other sort; for hydrogen atoms do not have this nature until they are there to have it, i.e. until their starting-to-exist has already occurred. That is Edwards's argument, in fact; and here it does seem entirely cogent. . . .[34]Now in the case at hand, if originally absolutely nothing existed, then why should it be spacetime that springs spontaneously out of the void, rather than, say, hydrogen atoms or even rabbits? How can one talk about the probability of any particular thing's popping into being out of nothing?
Davies on one occasion seems to answer as if the laws of physics are the controlling factor which determines what may leap uncaused into being: "But what of the laws? They have to be 'there' to start with so that the universe can come into being. Quantum physics has to exist (in some sense) so that a quantum transition can generate the cosmos in the first place."[35] Now this seems exceedingly peculiar. Davies seems to attribute to the laws of nature themselves a sort of ontological and causal status such that they constrain spontaneous becoming. But this seems clearly wrong-headed: the laws of physics do not themselves cause or constrain anything; they are simply propositional descriptions of a certain form and generality of what does happen in the universe. And the issue Edwards raises is why, if there were absolutely nothing, it would be true that any one thing rather than another should pop into being uncaused? It is futile to say it somehow belongs to the nature of spacetime to do so, for if there were absolutely nothing then there would have been no nature to determine that spacetime should spring into being.
Even more fundamentally, however, what Davies envisions is surely metaphysical nonsense. Though his scenario is cast as a scientific theory,. someone ought to be bold enough to say that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. Either the necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of spacetime existed or not; if so, then it is not true that nothing existed; if not, then it would seem ontologically impossible that being should arise out of absolute non-being. To call such spontaneous springing into being out of non-being a "quantum transition" or to attribute it to "quantum gravity" explains nothing; indeed, on this account, there is no explanation. It just happens.
It seems to me, therefore, that Davies has not provided any plausible basis for denying the truth of the cosmological argument's first premiss. That whatever begins to exist has a cause would seem to be an ontologically necessary truth, one which is constantly confirmed in our experience.
ConclusionGiven the truth of premisses (1) and (2), it logically follows that (3) the universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.
Summary and Conclusion
In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.
Still Getting Views : new Meta physical Dimension
Still Getting Views - A new Dimension Metaphysical
Multiple Partial Clarity -- For complete Explaination
Multiple Partial Clarity -- For complete Explaination
The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused Itself to Exist
This essay was originally published in Philosophy, Volume 74, 1999. pp. 136-146.
Source : - http://www.qsmithwmu.com/the_reason_the_universe_exists_is_because_it_caused_itself_to_exist.htmI
There are two familiar responses to the question, ‘why does the universe exist?’ One is that ‘God created it’ and the other is ‘for no reason—its existence is a brute fact’. In this essay I propose to explore a third alternative, that the reason for the universe’s existence lies within the universe itself.
I shall approach this question from a metaphysical perspective. In Robert Deltete’s response to my article on ‘Simplicity and Why the University Exists’[1], he makes a number of arguments that pertain to contemporary mathematical cosmology. These technical and mathematical arguments are interesting and need to be addressed, but I shall not address them here. Rather, I shall confine myself to some purely metaphysical points. In particular, I shall discuss a premise that Deltete shares with William Lane Craig, T. D Sullivan, William F. Vallicella[2] and others, namely, the premise that
(1) the universe can begin to exist only if it is caused to begin to exist by a cause external to the universe (such a cause is usually identified, after further argumentation, with God).
Deltete, Craig, Sullivan and Vallicella (and most philosophers from the early Greeks to contemporaries) seem to think that this metaphysical principle follows from another metaphysical principle, viz.,
(2) the universe cannot begin to exist uncaused.
I shall show, however, that principle (1) does not follow from principle (2). William Craig writes about principle (2), ‘probably no one in his right mind can really believe it to be false’[3]. If this is true, then most contemporary cosmologists (e.g., Stephen Hawking, James Hartle, Alexander Vilenkin, Alan Guth, Paul Steinhardt, etc.) are mentally off-centre and perhaps require haldol or some similar psychotropic medication to construct a sensible cosmological theory. But Craig’s criterion of ‘being in one’s right mind’ is too stringent, as the theist Phil Quinn points out[4]. None the less, let us grant for the sake of argument that (2) is true. I shall show there are three different ways in which (2) can be true and yet (1) false. That is, there are three ways in which the universe can be caused to begin to exist, and yet that it is not caused to begin to exist by God or any other external cause or causes.
II
Alain Aspect’s confirmation[5] of Bell’s theorem can plausibly be taken as confirming the existence of simultaneous or instantaneous causation across arbitrarily large spatial distances. For example, given the appropriate initial conditions, if a photon x is measured to be in a ‘spin up’ state, this simultaneously causes a spatially distant photon y to be in a ‘spin down’ state. The physical details need not detain us, since it suffices if such a scenario is even possible. (A good and very brief explanation of such ‘EPR correlations’ has been given by Michael Tooley[6].)
The history of science also gives us cases of mutual, simultaneous causation. Newton’s theory provides an uncontroversial example. We can think of a possible world where an instantaneous or ‘infinitely fast’ gravitational force is the only factor that causally affects the motion of bodies. (For example, we can imagine smaller bodies, such as moons, orbiting larger bodies, such as planets.) There is an instantaneous gravitational attraction between two moving bodies at the instant t. Each body’s infinitesimal state of motion at the instant t is an effect of an instantaneous gravitational force exerted by the other body at the instant t. In this case, the infinitesimal motion of the first body is an effect of an instantaneous gravitational force exerted by the second body, and the infinitesimal motion of the second body is an effect of an instantaneous gravitational force of the first body. This is a case of the existence of a state S1 being caused by another state S2, with the existence of S2 being simultaneously caused by S1.
If it is physically possible, actual or necessary that some states of bodies or particles are instantaneously caused to begin to exist by other such states, then this is both metaphysically possible and logically possible. Suppose we have a first state of the universe that consists of the initial temporal part (initial state) of three particulars (e.g., elementary particles). Let us call the three initial states or temporal parts of the three particles the states a, b and c. (For simplicity’s sake, we shall adopt a ‘geni-identical’ theory of objects, namely, that objects are not enduring particulars but a succession of causally connected temporal parts (states, events).) The temporal part or state a of one of the particles instantaneously causes the state b to begin to exist, b instantaneously causes c to begin to exist, and c instantaneously causes a to begin to exist. This causal loop obtains at the first instant of time, t = 0.
In this case, the universe begins to exist, is caused to begin to exist, but is not caused to begin to exist by God or any other cause(s) external to the universe. Perhaps it is worth spelling this out in detail. The universe at t = 0 is nothing other than the particles’ temporal parts a and b and c. Each of these time-slices of the particles is caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, namely, by one of the time-slices or states of one of the other three particles. If the universe at t = 0 is a, b and c, and a, b and c are each caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, it follows that the universe is caused to begin to exist, but not by anything external to the universe. The universe is self-caused in the sense that each part of the universe is caused to exist by some other part of the universe.
Thus, it is possible for an atheist to accept Deltete’s principle that ‘it is impossible for something to begin to exist uncaused’ (1998, 493, n. 8) and still hold the universe begins to exist without the help of any external cause. And the atheist can hold that the universe comes to be and happily agree with Sullivan that ‘we have good reason to believe that everything that comes to be, including the universe, is caused’[7]. And finally, I can reassure Craig regarding his concern about my mental health: He writes: ‘... incredibly, Smith denies this causal principle. His final position in Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology is that the origin of the universe, including all matter and energy, and space and time themselves, is simply uncaused. ... Now I confess that I am simply bewildered that Smith can affirm such a thing. I have wondered to myself on multiple occasions how he can really believe that the universe just popped into existence uncaused out of nothing.’[8] Let thy bewilderment cease: I can in good health believe that the universe’s ‘popping into existence’ was indeed caused—but not by God.
III
There is a second way the universe can cause itself to begin to exist. Suppose the first hour of the universe’s existence is half-open in the earlier direction. This means there is no instant corresponding to the number zero in the real line interval 0 ³ x £ 1. If time is continuous, then there is no first instant that immediately follows the hypothetical ‘first instant’ t = 0. This is because between any two instants, there are an infinite number of other instants. If we ‘cut out’ the instant that corresponds to 0 in the interval 0 ³ x £ 1, we will not find a certain instant that immediately comes after the ‘cut out’ instant t = 0. For example, the instant corresponding to the number 1/2 in the interval 0> x £ 1 cannot be the first instant, since between the number 0 and the number 1/2 (= 2/4) there is the number 1/4. The same holds for any other number in the interval 0 > x £ 1.
This implies that every instantaneous state of the universe corresponding to a number in the interval 0 > x £ 1 is preceded and caused by other instantaneous states. There is no instantaneous state in this first half-open hour that lacks some earlier cause. Since the universe is nothing other than the succession of these instantaneous states, it follows that the universe begins to exist, but that its beginning to exist is internally caused. It is internally caused in the sense that each instantaneous part of the finitely old succession of parts is caused by earlier instantaneous parts of the succession.
Now some theists, like Craig and Swinburne, might ask: what causes the whole interval, specifically, the first half-open hour? Does this need an external cause, such as a divine cause?
The answer is negative, since the interval is nothing other than the set of the instantaneous states that make up the hour. The set or interval logically supervenes upon the members of the set. If Jack and Jill are each caused to exist, then the set [Jack, Jill] does not need an extra cause of its existence. For the existence of Jack and Jill entail the existence of the set [Jack, Jill]. The set is not caused to exist, but is logically required by the concrete elements that are caused to exist.
Furthermore, the set is an abstract object, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. If the interval is conceived instead as a concrete mereological sum, then it still does not have a cause. If each part of a mereological sum is caused to exist by some earlier part(s), then the existence of the sum is logically guaranteed by this fact. There is no extra causal act directed upon the sum itself; indeed, an extra causal act is logically precluded. It is impossible to bring the sum (interval) into existence by an act of causation directed upon the sum if that sum logically supervenes upon other particulars (the instantaneous states that compose the sum) that have been brought into existence by distinct acts of causation. If the parts of the interval exist, that entails the interval exists, and consequently the causation of the parts is a logically sufficient condition of the existence of the interval.
I have not fallen into Vallicella’s trap by adopting a Humean definition of causation. According to Hume, c causes e if and only if c and e are spatiotemporally contiguous, c occurs earlier than e, and c and e are subsumed under event-types C and E which are related by the generalization that all events of type C are followed by events of type E. Vallicella points out that ‘there is no contradiction in maintaining that x causes y without in any way producing or bringing about y. For on an Humean analysis, there is nothing productive about causation, which is to say that on such an analysis causation is not causation-of-existence.’[9]. I reject Hume’s definition of causation and am adopting what Vallicella calls ‘the ordinary concept of cause. The latter is such that if x causes y, then x causes y to exist (occur).’[10]
Thus, we have a second respect in which the atheist can accept a properly interpreted kalam cosmological argument, which reads (in one of its versions):
(3) If the universe begins to exist, the beginning of its existence
is caused.
(4) The universe begins to exist.
Therefore,
(5) There is some cause(s) of the universe’s beginning to exist.
We can characterize the universe as a continuum of successive, instantaneous states. This continuum of instantaneous states begins to exist in the sense that there is an earliest half-open interval of each length (a first hour, a first minute, a first second, etc.). The continuum’s beginning to exist is caused in the sense that each instantaneous state that belongs to the continuum is caused by some earlier instantaneous states that also belong to the continuum.
Deltete writes in his reply to my ‘Simplicity and Why the Universe Exists’ about his sympathy for the causal principle that "‘it is impossible for something to begin to exist uncaused", which Smith derides but which he also never seriously addresses.’[11] First of all, I did seriously address it at length in[12]. Second, I have now ‘seriously addressed it’ in a different sense by showing how the truth of this principle is consistent with an atheistic theory of a finitely old universe.
IV
There may be another way for the universe to cause itself to begin to exist, but this way will be found dubious by many since it involves backward causation. None the less, some cosmologists, such as John Wheeler, claimed that the big bang, the first state of the universe, is backwardly caused by cosmologists observing the big bang. Wheeler’s theory makes little sense to me, unless we presuppose some sort of subjective idealism where past time and the universe itself is a creation of the human mind.
But we can have a universe that is backwardly caused to begin to exist on a theory of metaphysical realism. Some cosmologists, such as Alan Guth, have speculated that if we compress a certain amount of matter to the size of a proton, the result will be a ‘big bang explosion’ that creates another universe that detaches from our own like a small bubble detaching from a larger bubble. Now Kurt Godel has shown that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity permits a universe in which time-travel into the past is possible. This universe contains a central cylinder around which the rest of the universe is rotating. If a rocket leaves the central cylinder at time t = 4, the rotation of the universe will ‘tip the rocket’s light cone’ so that (from the point of view of the central cylinder) the rocket’s ‘future half of the cone’ is actually pointed in the direction of the central cylinder’s past.[13] The person in the rocket counts her time as t’ = 5, t’ = 6, but the people in the central cylinder see these ‘rocket times’ as actually corresponding to earlier and earlier central-cylinder times, so that the rocket’s t’ = 5 corresponds to the cylinder’s t = 3, the rocket’s t’ = 6 corresponds to the cylinder’s t = 2, and so on. Now suppose the rotating part of the universe narrows to the boundaries of the cylinder at the part of the cylinder that corresponds to the earliest cylinder time t = 0. Let us suppose this earliest cylinder time contains a big bang explosion. The rocket approaches the cylinder’s t = 0 state and just before the rocket reaches this state of the cylinder, a person in the rocket compresses a chunk of matter down to the size of a proton. This proton explodes out of the rocket and its explosion (heading in the future direction, according to the rocket’s time) comprises the initial big bang state t = 0 of the central cylinder. In this way, the initial cylinder state t = 0 is caused to exist by something that exists later than t = 0 (according to the cylinder time), namely, the compression of the proton on the rocket.
This represents a third way in which the universe can cause itself to exist. Admittedly, the possibility of this third way is more dubious or controversial than the first two ways. The atheist need not repose too much weight on the assumption that backward causation is really possible, since she can always deny its possibility and say the universe caused itself to begin to exist in the first way (via a simultaneous causal loop) or in the second way (via a half-open interval of instantaneous and causally connected states of the universe).
V
The theist cannot at this point insist that any cause of the universe’s beginning to exist must exist earlier than the universe, for the theist typically holds that God’s act of causing the universe to begin to exist did not occur earlier than the universe’s first state. The theist typically says that God timelessly causes the universe to begin to exist or simultaneously causes the universe to begin to exist. Some theists, like Swinburne, hold that God exists in a metrically amorphous time that exists earlier than the first state of the universe, but this is not the usual theist position. Traditionally, the theists are much more sympathetic than atheists to the theory that causes need not exist earlier than their effects.
I think this addresses the fundamental metaphysical reason why Deltete, Craig, Sullivan, Vallicella and other theists object to my thesis that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so.
Their objection is that an uncaused beginning is impossible[14]. I have now nullified that objection by explaining three ways in which the universe can cause itself to begin to exist. Deltete, Craig, Sullivan and Vallicella are now deprived of the main weapon in their arsenal of arguments against the atheistic theory of a finitely old universe. They can no longer say the atheistic theory can be rejected out of hand since it violates the ‘self-evident’ or ‘plausible’ principle that uncaused beginnings are impossible. Given this, ‘the cosmological argument for God’s existence’ is invalid for universes that begin to exist. More precisely, the kalam cosmological argument for God’s existence is invalid, since its premises are consistent with the conclusion that the universe caused itself to begin to exist. The kalam cosmological argument in one of its theistic versions is that: if the universe begins to exist, it has a cause; the universe begins to exist; therefore the universe has an external cause such as God. The invalidity is the inference of ‘an external cause’ from ‘a cause’.
Thus, the atheist is not the one who needs to fear the principle that if the universe begins to exist, it has a cause. Indeed, it is this very principle that endangers theism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)