Explaining the universe Michael Lacewing enquiriesalevelphilosophy co uk

Explaining the universe Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy. co. uk

What we need to explain ZWhy does the universe exist at all? ZWhy do we exist? (Why is the universe set up so that life is possible? )

The Kalam argument Z Of anything that begins to exist, you can ask what caused it. For example, what caused me (my birth)? In a sense, my parents. But then, we can repeat the question: ‘what caused my parents? ’ And so on. We can go back to the beginning of the universe, and then ask ‘what caused the universe? ’. If Z the universe began to exist, then it must have a cause of its existence. Something can’t come out of nothing. Z What we need is something that causes things to exist, but the existence of which isn’t caused itself. Z Only God could be such a thing.

Science is inadequate Z Science can’t explain the origins of the universe. It uses causal explanations, so it has to assume the existence of something to explain anything. Z Of anything science assumes to exist, we can ask ‘what caused that? ’.

Objection 1 Z Must every event have a cause? David Hume famously argued that we cannot know this. It is not an analytic truth (by contrast, ‘every effect has a cause’ is an analytic truth; but is every event an effect? ). Z ‘Something cannot come out of nothing’ is also not analytic. Z But our experience is that everything so far has a cause. Z But can this principle can be applied to the beginning of the universe?

Objection 2 Z Because time came into existence with the universe, the universe didn’t ‘happen’ at a time, so in a sense, it has no beginning. Z True, but science suggests the universe has a finite past (it is about 15 billion years old). Whatever has a finite past must have a cause of its existence. Z In the case of the universe, that cause can’t exist in time if time didn’t exist before the universe. Z But that doesn’t mean there was no cause, only that the cause must exist outside time. Which God does.

Objection 3 Z Even if this universe has a beginning, perhaps it was caused by a previous (or another) universe, and so on, infinitely. Something has always existed. Z Does this make sense? Z The universe gets older as time passes. But this couldn’t happen if the universe was infinitely old, because you cannot add any number to infinity and get a bigger number: ∞ + 1 = ∞. So if the universe is infinitely old, it is not getting any older as time passes!

Objection 3 cont. Z To have reached the present, an infinite amount of time would need to have passed. But it is not possible for an infinite amount of time to have passed. Z If we have an infinite series of causes, although each cause can be explained in terms of the previous cause, we may wonder what explains the whole series.

Richard Swinburne: an inductive argument Z The Kalam argument does not prove God exists. But the hypothesis that God exists is the best explanation. Z Again, science can’t offer a good explanation. Z We should not simply say ‘there is no explanation’. This is not good science nor good philosophy.

Personal explanation Z We can explain the universe if we give a personal explanation in terms of God: God wanted life to exist, so created the physical laws to make this possible. Z We use explanations in terms of persons - what we want, believe, intend - all the time. Z These are not explanations that make use of scientific laws.

Is this a good explanation? Z Does it improve our understanding? Or does introducing God just invoke one mystery to explain another? Z ‘What explains God? ’ is no better than ‘What explains scientific laws? ’ Z Swinburne: that we can’t explain God is no objection. A good explanation may posit something unexplained. This happens in science all the time, e. g. subatomic particles.

Does the universe need explaining? Z The lottery argument Z It’s incredibly unlikely, before the draw, that whoever wins will win. Z But someone will win. Z With enough chances, the incredibly unlikely can become inevitable. Z If there are lots of universes, one of them would have the right conditions for life.

Why us? ZWhy this one? No reason: but if it wasn’t this one, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question! ZIt’s all a big coincidence.