Many people have heard of the cosmological argument by now, as it is a very popular apologetic that attempts to establish a synthetic proposition as fact without any evidential basis for doing so. However, most people I have talked to don't realize that it is actually worse than that. It posits a privileged inertial frame of reference, violating special relativity, and the entire concept of a block universe based on spacetime. The entire argument hinges on the A-theory of time, as in the B-theory of time the universe never "begins to exist" at all, and it exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended into the past. In the tenseless B-theory of time, the universe never "began to exist" making the first premise entirely incoherent. So, how can we determine which theory of time is actually real? Physics, of course!
All that is necessary to show that a tenseless view of time is accurate, and the tensed view of time inaccurate, is the removal of subjective observers from the equations. Special relativity does this. It proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that speed and time are dependent on the position and relative speed of the observer, rendering all inertial frames of reference as wholly subjective. There is not a single absolute or privileged inertial frame of reference. How can we be sure that special relativity is accurate? Well, length contraction and time dilation.
What does all this mean?
The universe is seen as multi-dimensional object that tenselessly exists and doesn't ever 'come into being', so cause is meaningless.
Without a preferred subjective reference frame, relative to the observer, for identifying a simultaneous moment which would be called 'now' one has to conclude that 'now' is meaningless.
I will end this with a quote by the popular apologist William Lane Craig:
"From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." - Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology pp 183-184
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
We really can't explain everything about the universe or even a half part of it. Our little knowledge about the universe is something that we should boost instead of trying to explain something about the existence of god.
"All that is necessary to show that a tenseless view of time is accurate, and the tensed view of time inaccurate, is the removal of subjective observers from the equations. Special relativity does this. It proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that speed and time are dependent on the position and relative speed of the observer, rendering all inertial frames of reference as wholly subjective. There is not a single absolute or privileged inertial frame of reference. How can we be sure that special relativity is accurate? Well, length contraction and time dilation."
I'm confused as to how special relativity somehow proves the tenseless theory of time. The Hilbert space in which spacetime is described is not a *real* spacetime, but a *mathematical* spacetime. What this means is that the way we mathematically describe things may not be the way they operate in the actual world. Sometimes, these models which we use merely help us to understand how the Universe works, but may not describe the actuality of the Universe.
Secondarily, the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) gives us good reasons to think that time is real and objective, and we are all really moving through time.
I'm also confused as to how causation could be rendered meaningless on the tenseless view of time. I could simply say that there is a relational boundary in the earlier-than direction between two events, and what would be the difference between saying that and saying the first event caused the second? Could this not be applied at the Big Bang, where the cause exists timelessly alongside the Universe, or is timelessly causing the Universe?
Not to mention that if we grant that the tenseless view of time were true, it does not render God's existence impossible, or unlikely, for God can exist timelessly alongside this spacetime block and sustain it in existence.
"I'm confused as to how special relativity somehow proves the tenseless theory of time. The Hilbert space in which spacetime is described is not a *real* spacetime, but a *mathematical* spacetime. What this means is that the way we mathematically describe things may not be the way they operate in the actual world. Sometimes, these models which we use merely help us to understand how the Universe works, but may not describe the actuality of the Universe."
It proves that time is no different that width, length, or height. There are no privileged inertial frames, meaning the past, present, and future all exist. This means that the universe always existed as a spacetime block.
"Secondarily, the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) gives us good reasons to think that time is real and objective, and we are all really moving through time."
The entropy only appears in certain inertial frames, in others there isn't an increase. In other words, time dilation messes with entropy.
"I'm also confused as to how causation could be rendered meaningless on the tenseless view of time. I could simply say that there is a relational boundary in the earlier-than direction between two events, and what would be the difference between saying that and saying the first event caused the second?"
Because the event and cause both exist as a spacetime blocks that always existed.
"Could this not be applied at the Big Bang, where the cause exists timelessly alongside the Universe, or is timelessly causing the Universe?"
The cause would exist alongside the universe.
"Not to mention that if we grant that the tenseless view of time were true, it does not render God's existence impossible, or unlikely, for God can exist timelessly alongside this spacetime block and sustain it in existence."
It wouldn't mean god is impossible, only superfluous and unnecessary.
Hmmm... Maybe you should lay off the thermodynamics; proof of moving through time does nothing to prove non-subjective time and less to prove the existence of a prime mover (I'm guessing that's what you are calling "God")
I like your third paragraph, that is some good thinking and certainly not disprovable. It isn't scientific, but it is a strong philosophical argument for those who enjoy that sort of thing, which I do.
Nobody with a bit of intellectual integrity is going to say that anything is 100% impossible, but I'm gonna have to call out that "unlikely" bit. Not that I didn't enjoy your post, because I actually did, thanks.
shock of god - "The Hilbert space in which spacetime is described"
Hilbert space is a infinite, complete inner product space, I think you mean Minkowski space? LOL
Let me qualify everything I'm about to write by saying I never finished high school and after 25 years of attempting college I finally have the dubious honor of being an Associate of Arts in General Studies. Now that's out of the way...
The cosmological argument is neither cosmological nor an argument. Okay, that's a tad glib; but it certainly is a non-argument which seems to have been thought up merely to validate a supposition that a prime mover exists or that there MUST have been a prime mover at the "birth" of our universe.
I can't claim to understand any of the time theories, but even a rube like me knows that time is completely subjective, it cannot mean the same thing to my 18 year old self at 0400 hrs on the L train to Brooklyn on Sunday as it does to a replicant watching attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. Likewise, is does not and did not mean the same thing at big bang + 7 seconds as it does at big bang + 13 billion years. (Times used may not be exact, nor may they even exist.)
I wouldn't even worry about apologists trying to use the cosmological argument. Not only is it without teeth, but once they introduce a prime mover the "argument" is over and it's a supposition and philosophy (which I love, but it isn't science).
-Xian