The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Roger Scruton, an English philosopher, titled “Memo to Hawking: There’s Still Room for God“. (Sorry, it’s behind a paywall.) He attempts to refute Hawking’s premise that no God is needed to create a universe from nothing.
Immanuel Kant, who believed that Newton’s laws of gravity are not merely true but necessarily true, argued that we humans lack the ability to comprehend the universe as a whole, and thus that we can never construct a valid argument for a designer. Our thinking can take us from one point to another along the chain of events. But it cannot take us to a point outside the chain, from which we can pose the question of an original cause.
If Mr. Hawking is right, the answer to the question “What created the universe?” is “The laws of physics.” But what created the laws of physics? How is it that these strange and powerful laws, and these laws alone, apply to the world?
The laws of physics are not physical objects that need to be created. They are a set of explanations for how the universe works. Perhaps Scruton is confused by the word “law”. The common usage for the word is that laws are man-made rules. (I’m sure the lawyers reading this have a much more precise definition…) Physicists use the word as a way of describing limitations they place on how the universe can work. In effect, the physicists are the “creators” of the laws, but only insomuch as they were the ones to write them down after figuring them out.
“But what created the laws of physics? How is it that these strange and powerful laws, and these laws alone, apply to the world?”
I think the string theorists have an approach that they believe answers this question. As I understand it, however, lots of other physicists don’t think that’s a point in favor of string theory.
But let’s grant Scruton his question for a moment. “What created the laws of physics?” I didn’t look behind the WSJ paywall, but I assume his answer to that question is “God.”
So, as any 5-year-old child would ask next, what created God? And if you have an answer for that, why won’t the same answer work for the big bang or the laws of physics?
Besides, Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.
Of course many physicists don’t consider string theory to be physics since (last I read about it several years back) they couldn’t come up with testable predictions and therefore consider the theory to be philosophy rather than physics. Perhaps Scruton would be more comfortable arguing with string theorists.
In the article, Scruton just continues to support Kant’s position.
Scruton then says that this is the same realm as faith (in God being implied). This puts the laws of physics in the same realm as morality which I also have a problem with. This would mean that morality is an absolute that can be measured and quantified, like the speed of light.
I see morality as a human construct, that can change depending upon which human in what circumstance is “creating” it. In that respect it really is akin to human laws. The “laws” of physics, however, aren’t really laws. They are a description of how the (this?) universe (multiverse?) operates. Who “created” that description?
What Kant and Scruton seem to be arguing over is the idea that some being must have “decided” what the speed of light would be and other physical properties. But, as physicists understand the standard model, these properties weren’t really “set” but were the inevitable result of the Big Bang, which is what you inevitably get when you start with nothing. To get different results (such as an open or closed structure of the universe instead of a flat one) you would need to start with something rather than nothing. Only in that case would you need a first cause.
As Hawking pointed out, as we now understand physics, the first cause is nothing, not something. If you still want to pursue Kant’s (and Scranton’s) first cause argument, you really are saying that God created nothing to set the universe in motion. If nothing needed to be done to create the universe, then (as another great philosopher once said), who is this God person anyway? We don’t need one to set things off.
I’ll conclude with on observation by the same set of philosophers who provided the insight into Kant’s lifestyle you referred to.
The way I once heard it put was “When we say ‘laws of nature’ or ‘laws of physics’ we’re speaking of general rules that- according to our current understanding of how things work- describe how and why things work. Which means that they’re subject to change at anytime when new information or better understanding becomes available.”
Where we humans get confused is when we start thinking of God as an entity in itself, an entity separate from “his” creation. In my own puny human way, being as ignorant as everyone else is on the subject, I think of God and creation as one. In fact, I think of our entire universe as being but one tiny cell, among countless other cells, within the cosmic body of “God”
Using that logic God was created when the universe was created. It’s an interesting way of looking at the subject, but does it affect Hawking’s premise of God’s role in understanding the universe?
The core of Hawking’s argument is that there is no need for a God when thinking about the universe or how the universe started. You can still believe there is a God, but there is no need for one to understand the existence of everything, including the creation of everything from nothing.
As for God being part of the universe (or the universe being part of God), there is no evidence for such a relationship nor any way of thinking about how you would test for such a relationship. That keeps such ideas firmly in the realm of philosophy and away from science.
A. Circular Reasoning
In his article ‘The other side of time’ (2000) scientist Victor J. Stenger has written that as per the theory of quantum electrodynamics electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs can appear spontaneously for brief periods of time practically out of nothing, which clearly shows that anything that has a beginning need not have to have a cause of that beginning. Here he was actually rebutting Mr. William Lane Craig’s claim that anything that has a beginning must have a cause. Electron-positron pairs begin to exist, but they have no cause of their beginning, because they appear literally out of nothing.
From here he has concluded that our universe may also come literally out of nothing due to quantum fluctuation in the void, and therefore we need not have to imagine that God has done this job.
But is it true that electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs are appearing literally out of “nothing”? Are scientists absolutely certain that the so-called void is a true void indeed? Because here there is a counter-claim also: God is there, and that God is everywhere. So actually nothing is coming out of “nothing”, only something is coming out of something. Here they will perhaps say: as there is no proof for God’s existence so far, so why should one have to believe that the void here is not a true void? But even if there is no proof for God’s existence, still then it can be shown that scientists’ claim that the universe has literally come out of nothing is a pure case of circular reasoning. If believers say that the void is not a true void at all, and if scientists still then hold that it is nothing but a void, then this is only because they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, and also because they think that God’s non-existence is so well-established a fact that it needs no further proof for substantiation. But if they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, then they are also absolutely certain that God is not the architect, designer, creator of our universe, because it is quite obvious that a non-existent God cannot be the architect, designer, etc. So their starting premise is this: God does not exist, and therefore our universe is definitely not the creation of a God. But if they start from the above premise, then will it be very difficult to reach to the same conclusion?
But their approach here could have been somehow different. They could have said: well, regarding void, it is found that there is some controversy. Therefore we will not assume that it is a void, rather we will prove that it is such. Then they could have proceeded to give an alternate explanation for the origin of the universe, in which there will be neither any quantum fluctuation in the void, nor any hand of God to be seen anywhere. And their success here could have settled the matter for all time to come.
By simply ignoring a rumour one cannot kill it, rather it will remain as it is. But if one takes some more trouble on him and exposes that it is nothing but a rumour, then it will die a natural death with no further chance of revival. Let us say that the saying that there is a God and that He is everywhere is nothing but a rumour persisting for thousands of years among mankind. What scientists have done here is this: they have simply ignored the rumour and thus kept it alive. But it would have been far better for them if they could have killed it, as suggested by me.
B. “Circular Reasoning” Case Reexamined
There can be basically two types of universe: (1) universe created by God, supposing that there is a God; (2) universe not created by God, supposing that there is no God. Again universe created by God can also be of three types:
(1a) Universe in which God need not have to intervene at all after its creation. This is the best type of universe that can be created by God.
(1b) Universe in which God has actually intervened from time to time, but his intervention is a bare minimum.
(1c) Universe that cannot function at all without God’s very frequent intervention. This is the worst type of universe that can be created by God.
Therefore we see that there can be four distinct types of universes, and our universe may be any one of the above four types: (1a), (1b), (1c), (2). In case of (1a), scientists will be able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event that has happened in the universe after its origin, because after its creation there is no intervention by God at any moment of its functioning. Only giving natural explanation for its coming into existence will be problematic. In case of (1b) also, most of the events will be easily explained away, without imagining that there is any hand of God behind these events. But for those events where God had actually intervened, scientists will never be able to give any natural explanation. Also explaining origin of the universe will be equally problematic. But in case of (1c), most of the events will remain unexplained, as in this case God had to intervene very frequently. This type of universe will be just like the one as envisaged by Newton: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” So we can with confidence say that our universe is not of this type, otherwise scientists could not have found natural explanation for most of the physical events. In case of type (2) universe, here also there will be natural explanation for each and every physical event, and there will be natural explanation for the origin of the universe also. So from the mere fact that scientists have so far been able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event, it cannot be concluded that our universe is a type (2) universe, because this can be a type (1a) universe as well. The only difference between type (1a) and type (2) universe is this: whereas in case of (1a) no natural explanation will ever be possible for the origin of the universe, it will not be so in case of (2). Therefore until and unless scientists can give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, they cannot claim that it is a type (2) universe. And so, until and unless scientists can give this explanation, they can neither claim that the so-called void is a true void. So scientists cannot proceed to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe with an a priori assumption that the void is a real void, because their failure or success in giving this explanation will only determine as to whether this is a real void or not.
C. Scientists have taken a forbidden step
This is about scientists’ claim that our universe has originated from nothing due to a vacuum fluctuation. Here I want to show again that this claim cannot be sustained by reason.
Abbreviation: origin of the universe from nothing due to vacuum fluctuation (OUNVF)
We all know that the theorems in Euclidean geometry generally start with some basic assumptions that are accepted as true without any proof. These basic assumptions are called axioms. Similarly scientific theories also start with some basic assumptions. These are called postulates. So far these postulates of scientific theories were all God-independent. I am going to explain what I want to mean by the term “God-independent”. Let us suppose that P is a postulate. Now it may be the case that there is a God. Or it may be the case that there is no God. Now let us suppose it is the case that there is a God, and we find that P is not affected. Again let us further suppose that it is the case there is no God, and again we find that in this case also P is not affected. Then we can say P is God-independent. But in the case under consideration the basic assumption with which scientists start is not at all God-independent. Rather we can say that it is very much God-dependent. Their basic assumption here is this: the void is a real void, and it is nothing but a void. Now if it is the case that there is a God, then this assumption is very much affected, because the void is no longer a real void. If, and only if, it is the case that there is no God, then only it is a real void. Therefore when scientists are saying that the void is a real void, then they are also saying it indirectly that it is the case there is no God, or, that it is a fact there is no God. But my question here is this: are these scientists now in a position to say so? Have their knowledge of the empirical world and its laws and its workings up till now made them competent enough to declare at this stage that there is no God? Because here two points will have to be considered:
1) They have not yet been able to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe.
2) Similarly they have not yet been able to give a natural explanation for the fact that our universe has become habitable for life, whereas it could have been barren and lifeless as well.
Now it may so happen that scientists completely fail to give any natural explanation for both 1) and 2). In that case will it not be too early for them to suppose that the void is a real void? Because if they are unsuccessful, then they do not know whether there is a God or not, and therefore neither do they know whether the void is a real void or not. But if they are successful, then they definitely know that there is no God. Then only they can say that the void is a real void. So we can say that 1) and 2) are two hurdles that the scientists must have to cross before they can arrive at a place from where they can boldly declare that God does not exist. This is the place that may be called scientists’ heaven. Because once they can reach there, then they will have no hesitation to deny the existence of God. Because now they have explained the alpha and omega of this universe, starting from its origin up to the coming of man on earth and further beyond, and nowhere they have found any hand of God influencing the course of events in any way. But, to arrive at that place can they take any undue advantage? Or, can they try to reach there by any unfair means? Can they already assume that there is no God, and based on that assumption, can they try to cross any one, or both, of these two hurdles? But in case of 1) they have just done that. That is why I want to say that OUNVF is a pure case of circular reasoning.
Does the universe need a God?
Does the universe need God? Yes, the universe needs God if it can be shown that everything in the universe cannot be explained naturally. Scientists claim that there is no fact, no event, no natural phenomenon in the universe for which they cannot provide a natural scientific explanation. But this claim is untrue. We can show that there is at least one fact in the universe for which they will never be able to give any natural explanation. This fact is that light has got some very peculiar properties if we are to believe that the following two equations of special theory of relativity are not giving us bluff in any way:
t1 = t(1-v2/c2)1/2
l1 = l(1-v2/c2)1/2
The first equation shows that for light time totally stops, and the second equation shows that for light any distance it has to travel is reduced to zero. For light even infinite distance is reduced to zero. These two equations together show that as if light has no space as well as no time to move. But light cannot have these two properties naturally. Or, these two properties cannot naturally arise in light. If one asks “why”, then we will give three reasons:
1) like everything else light was also created after the big bang,
2) like everything else light was also placed in a universe full of space and time,
3) light has in no way been artificially deprived of space and time.
A thing may naturally have the two properties of spacelessness and timelessness in following two cases only:
1) if it is placed in a world where there is no space, no time;
2) if placed in a world full of space and time it is artificially deprived of space and time.
But light is neither placed in a world having no space, no time, nor is it artificially deprived of space and time. So there is no apparent reason as to why light will have these two properties. In spite of these facts we find that light is having these properties. So if it is having these properties, then it is having them not naturally, but by some unnatural means. Anything being placed in space and time cannot naturally lack space and time until and unless it is artificially deprived of them. So it is an enigma that light in spite of its being placed in space and time will still be having no space and no time. At least the above two equations of STR are saying so. And here I am challenging the whole scientific community all over the world: let them bring any damn scientific theory here – relativity theory, quantum theory, string theory, M-theory, multiverse theory, parallel universe theory, or any other theory that they can think of – and let them show with their theory how there can naturally arise in light those two properties of spacelessness and timelessness. And I am saying with full confidence here that they will never be able to do that. This is only because there will always be two constraints due to which the properties of light can never have any natural explanation, and these two constraints can never be overcome by any scientific theory. I have already mentioned what are those two constraints: a) light is placed in a universe full of space and time, and b) light is not artificially deprived of space and time. This is the only gap that can never be bridged by any scientific explanation. This is the only gap that will require a supernatural explanation.
Was it predetermined that space and time in our universe would be relative? Was it predetermined that light being placed in a universe full of space and time would still exhibit such characteristics as if it were having no space, no time? I believe that in both the cases scientists will say “no”. Therefore there must have to be some natural explanation for both the two cases. And I am very much eager to get these explanations from them. But I know very well that they will never be able to give them. I think that I have already given reasons as to why they will never have a success here. If it is the case that I have not been able to make my points sufficiently clear, then I will have to try again.
Like everything else light was created after the big bang. Like everything else light was placed in a universe full of space and time. Being placed in this universe light has not been artificially deprived of space and time. Last of all it was not predetermined that light will behave in this universe as if it was having no space, no time. When a prisoner is put into a prison cell, he is deprived of all the space lying outside of his prison cell. But he cannot be deprived of the space lying inside his cell. Being inside the universe light should naturally have all the space available in the universe. If the universe is infinite, then light should also have infinite space. Why should it show such characteristic as if this infinite space is no space at all for it? How does light naturally acquire such characteristic if it was not predetermined, or predestined, that it would have such characteristic?
One may think that perhaps multiverse theory will rescue us here. But even if there are an infinite number of universes, still then there will not be a single universe out of these infinite number of universes which will be without space, without time. So in each and every member of these infinite number of universes light will be placed in space and in time, and in each and every member of these infinite number of universes light will not be predetermined to have those characteristics mentioned above. So for each and every universe one will have to explain how such characteristics can naturally grow in light, because in each and every universe the properties of light that it is actually having in our universe will appear as unnatural as anything.