The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

[John J. Bannan]

[bluegreenearth]

I need another clarification. It is my understanding that the inference to premise 3 refers to the "universe" as everything back to the moment of the Big Bang. Is that correct?

That is not my understanding. I mean, it could, if the Big Bang is the actual start of all spatio-temporal matter, but it does not have to be as far as the argument is concerned.

I understand what you are implying about spatio-temporal matter. However, if a non-spatio-temporal quantum field is a fundamental component of the universe, then the inference to premise 3 is not justifiable. I'm not sure if you require a further explanation but will offer one just in case. Premise 2 states that universe began to exist and Premise 3 follows that the universe had a cause. However, if a non-spatio-temporal quantum field is a fundamental component of the universe, then I am unable to identify a justification for presuming it began to exist (Premise 2) for it to have been caused (Premise 3) even if the spatio-temporal components of the universe did begin to exist at the moment of the Big Bang. However, we can infer the Big Bang and the spatio-temporal matter that followed from it probably had a cause. Is that fair?

[The Tanager]

I understand what you are implying about spatio-temporal matter. However, if a non-spatio-temporal quantum field is a fundamental component of the universe, then the inference to premise 3 is not justifiable. I'm not sure if you require a further explanation but will offer one just in case. Premise 2 states that universe began to exist and Premise 3 follows that the universe had a cause. However, if a non-spatio-temporal quantum field is a fundamental component of the universe, then I am unable to identify a justification for presuming it began to exist (Premise 2) for it to have been caused (Premise 3) even if the spatio-temporal components of the universe did begin to exist at the moment of the Big Bang. However, we can infer the Big Bang and the spatio-temporal matter that followed from it probably had a cause. Is that fair?

I'm not sure I understand you. Could you explain what you mean by the quantum field possibly being a "fundamental component of the universe (i.e., fundamental component of spatio-temporal matter in any form)"? Why would spatio-temporal matter having a fundamental component mean it was not caused? Are you saying that the quantum field could be a cause of all spatio-temporal matter (or just the form of matter after the Big Bang?), but itself be uncaused? Something else?

[bluegreenearth]

I'm not sure I understand you. Could you explain what you mean by the quantum field possibly being a "fundamental component of the universe (i.e., fundamental component of spatio-temporal matter in any form)"? Why would spatio-temporal matter having a fundamental component mean it was not caused? Are you saying that the quantum field could be a cause of all spatio-temporal matter (or just the form of matter after the Big Bang?), but itself be uncaused? Something else?

I proposed a quantum field (though the word "field" might be a bit misleading) that exists as a fundamental non-spatio-temporal component of the universe prior to the Big Bang.

[The Tanager]

I proposed a quantum field (though the word "field" might be a bit misleading) that exists as a fundamental non-spatio-temporal component of the universe prior to the Big Bang.

I'm wanting to know what you mean by "component" and how that relates to "cause".

[bluegreenearth]

I proposed a quantum field (though the word "field" might be a bit misleading) that exists as a fundamental non-spatio-temporal component of the universe prior to the Big Bang.

I'm wanting to know what you mean by "component" and how that relates to "cause".

I'm thinking about the universe having been in some non-spatio-temporal quantum and uncaused state prior to the moment of the Big Bang when the spatio-temporal components began to exist.

[The Tanager]

I'm thinking about the universe having been in some non-spatio-temporal quantum and uncaused state prior to the moment of the Big Bang when the spatio-temporal components began to exist.

Then I don't see how this scenario contradicts premises 1-3. The quantum field is not part of the "universe" because the "universe" refers to spatio-temporal matter. That the "universe" refers to spatio-temporal matter and not non-spatio-temporal things (such as your proposed quantum "field" or the God of classical theism or whatever other entities/things one would want to add) is not out of the ordinary. All of those candidates are still alive. It's at premise 4 that the theist argues many of them get marked off as candidates.

[bluegreenearth]

Then I don't see how this scenario contradicts premises 1-3. The quantum field is not part of the "universe" because the "universe" refers to spatio-temporal matter. That the "universe" refers to spatio-temporal matter and not non-spatio-temporal things (such as your proposed quantum "field" or the God of classical theism or whatever other entities/things one would want to add) is not out of the ordinary. All of those candidates are still alive. It's at premise 4 that the theist argues many of them get marked off as candidates.

That response better clarifies your perspective for me. Thanks.

What is the logical justification for presuming a non-spatio-temporal quantum field couldn't have been the state of the universe prior to the Big Bang? Is it just a semantic issue? If so, how does labeling the non-spatio-temporal quantum state of the universe prior to the Big Bang as something other than the "universe" change the logic of the argument?

[The Tanager]

What is the logical justification for presuming a non-spatio-temporal quantum field couldn't have been the state of the universe prior to the Big Bang? Is it just a semantic issue? If so, how does labeling the non-spatio-temporal quantum state of the universe prior to the Big Bang as something other than the "universe" change the logic of the argument?

Plugging in "spatio-temporal matter" as the definition of "universe" would have you asking here what is the logical justification for presuming a non-spatio-temporal quantum state isn't a state of "spatio-temporal matter" prior to the Big Bang. The justification is that you have defined it as non-spatio-temporal. This is like asking what is the logical justification for presuming a bachelor couldn't have been someone who was married when they were a bachelor. It is semantics, in the positive sense of that word (I don't think it's unimportant or an attempt to weasel through the argument, if you mean that sense of 'semantics').

This doesn't change the logic of the argument at all. If the quantum state is not spatio-temporal, then it's not a part of the "universe" in this argument, even if it was a prior state that gave rise to all spatio-temporal matter. Therefore, it's existence or non-existence has nothing to do with the first three premises of the argument, unless one could show it began to exist without a cause.

[bluegreenearth]

What is the logical justification for presuming a non-spatio-temporal quantum field couldn't have been the state of the universe prior to the Big Bang? Is it just a semantic issue? If so, how does labeling the non-spatio-temporal quantum state of the universe prior to the Big Bang as something other than the "universe" change the logic of the argument?

Plugging in "spatio-temporal matter" as the definition of "universe" would have you asking here what is the logical justification for presuming a non-spatio-temporal quantum state isn't a state of "spatio-temporal matter" prior to the Big Bang. The justification is that you have defined it as non-spatio-temporal. This is like asking what is the logical justification for presuming a bachelor couldn't have been someone who was married when they were a bachelor. It is semantics, in the positive sense of that word (I don't think it's unimportant or an attempt to weasel through the argument, if you mean that sense of 'semantics').

This doesn't change the logic of the argument at all. If the quantum state is not spatio-temporal, then it's not a part of the "universe" in this argument, even if it was a prior state that gave rise to all spatio-temporal matter. Therefore, it's existence or non-existence has nothing to do with the first three premises of the argument, unless one could show it began to exist without a cause.

Alright. I'll grant, for the sake of the argument, that a non-spatio-temporal quantum field can be considered separate from the universe.

[The Tanager]

Alright. I'll grant, for the sake of the argument, that a non-spatio-temporal quantum field can be considered separate from the universe.

Okay, so do you see further problems with premises 1-3 that you want to discuss before moving on to premise 4?