"out of nothing"

(This is not a formal paper... just a few brief comments)

I definitely don’t agree with everything William Lane Craig says*, but I think this is worth sharing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qQcWh3DKyg

Some (but certainly not all) atheists cite “virtual particles” coming out of the quantum vacuum and suggest that “if these can come into existence out of nothing, then so can out universe”.

As Craig points out, those particles do not “come from nothing”. They emerge out of pre-existing energy. Craig argues (elsewhere) that even the quantum vacuum energy had an absolute beginning “at some point in the finite past”.

The Origin of the Universe

I currently lack the expertise required for authoritative cosmological or astrophysical analysis. But Craig is not alone in his view on the absolute origin of all time, space, matter, and energy. Even some atheist/ agnostic cosmologists agree, including Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin. (Note: Guth’s view is sometimes misunderstood; he does not think that inflation is eternal in the past. He says that the idea “is in fact not possible” [1]).

Vilenkin argues that the laws of physics exist platonically and in a manner that is/was “logically prior” or explanatorily prior (but not temporally prior) to the absolute beginning of time. [2]

Craig argues that the absolute beginning of time (if there was one) would be evidence for theism (a key part of his Kalam Cosmological argument) [3], but I’m currently not convinced of that.

Despite Vilenkin’s suggestion that universe came from pre-existing platonic laws (that existed logically prior to the space-time-energy arena), he sometimes says that his model is that of spontaneous creation “out of nothing”. But clearly, if his model requires pre-existing platonic laws, it’s not “creation out of nothing”; rather it’s creation out of platonic/mathematical laws. Such “laws” may be hard to grasp, but they can’t coherently be described as “nothing” [4].

...

* (Regarding areas where I think Craig is mistaken)

For example, I think Craig’s moral argument for theism begs the question. Using Craig’s standard outline, the argument usually runs like this:

1. If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist

2. But objective moral values DO exist

3. Therefore, God exists

I think the argument is flawed, but let me clarify what Craig is saying. He is not saying (and IME has never said) that belief in God is necessary to live a morally-decent life. Instead, he is interested in the objective/subjective ontological status of moral values.

Craig defines an objective moral value as one that would be true and binding even if everybody disagreed with it. For example, Craig suggests that rape would be morally wrong even if everybody viewed it as morally neutral. And many people feel that way about moral values. Many (maybe most) people feel that rape violates some deep and intrinsic truth about reality. Craig suggests that such a feeling cannot be true UNLESS God exists “as an anchor point”. Craig is “interested in the plumb line”. If he is correct, then the existence of objective morality would prove God’s existence.

But how do we know whether objective morality exists (premise 2)? We feel it. It’s our moral experience. But how do we know whether our feelings/intuitions are correct? Craig is assuming that premise 2 is correct. Maybe it is, but I approach the issue differently.

My own approach is to FIRST argue that God exists (or that we have reason for thinking so). THEN from there I would suggest that our moral feelings are correct. So I think Craig’s approach is backwards. Here is how I would outline an argument:

1. If God exists then objective moral values exist because God serves as the anchor point

2. God exists (or more modestly: we have reasons for thinking that God exists)

3. Therefore, objective morality exists (or more modestly: to the extent that we are justified in inferring God’s existence, we are also justified in inferring the existence of objective moral values)

As I see it, if we want to know whether our moral intuitions are true then we need to first know whether God exists. I agree that objective morality exists, but only because I already believe in God (prior to contemplating the nature of morality).

FOOTNOTES:

1. Here are two interviews with Guth:

http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/Why-is-There-Anything-At-All-Alan-Guth-/860 (towards the end he says that time had an absolute beginning)

and here http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/Did-Our-Universe-have-a-Beginning-Alan-Guth-/856 (towards the end he says that it’s “in fact not possible” for inflation to be eternal in the past.)

2. Here’s an interesting interview with Vilenkin: http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/Did-Our-Universe-have-a-Beginning-Alexander-Vilenkin-/1402 - towards the end he clarifies that by “spontaneous creation out of nothing” he means creation from “laws” that existed “prior to the universe itself”. Then he suggests that “the laws of physics have some platonic existence that is independent of the universe”. He goes on to suggest that time itself had an absolute beginning and that it stemmed from the platonic laws.

3. Craig argues that a temporal effect cannot come from a timeless cause unless the cause possessed self-awareness and freewill (i.e. unless the cause is personal or a mind). For example, see Craig’s 1999 article “The Ultimate Question of Origins:
God and the Beginning of the Universe” in Astrophysics and Space Science, volume 269-270, pages 723-740. The entire paper can be read online at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html . Craig has more up to date articles available for free on his web site at www.reasonablefaith.org (you have to join before you can read, but membership is free). Additionally, Craig gave a lecture back in 2004 titled “Beyond the Big Bang”, which is currently available on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esqGaLSWgNc .

As I said, I’m currently not convinced, and neither are many others. For example, you can find several critiques of Craig’s argument at http://www.qsmithwmu.com/vita.htm (Craig has written several replies, which are available on his web site). Craig and Smith have debated back and forth several times. Though much of it is still beyond me, I recommend looking into their exchanges.