This is a great question… from a 9 year-old. What amazes me is how triumphantly it is paraded by adults!
Consider this article. (h/t VK):
… there is an obvious, gaping flaw in this commenter’s logic, well-known to skeptics for years: if you ask where the Big Bang came from, why can’t you ask the same thing of God?
You can.
When a person like this is asked who or what created God, the standard answer is that God always existed. But why can’t we say the same about the Universe itself?
Very good so far. We can say the universe always existed. In fact, scientists did in Newton’s time. So we’re agreed that there’s nothing wrong with saying something always existed? Good. So it is with God.
But the problem for the universe is that science points in quite a different direction – an uncomfortable one, for many. It points to the universe having begun – at least as we know it.
And to attack the question “Where did the Big Bang come from?” is to miss the point. We’re perfectly happy to accept the possibility that there existed for all eternity past a singularity from which the Big Bang banged. The real question is “What caused the Big Bang?” What happened to make the singularity explode?
In the formulation of William Lane Craig, the assertion is this: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”
Here the always-rational, always-skeptical scientist leaps off into an imaginary world where they invent invisible objects billions of lightyears across, with no proof whatsoever. Take the article above, for example:
It’s entirely possible the Universe is a part of a larger structure, a metaverse, if you will, that always existed and always will.
Oh the irony.
Who said the singularity was stable, and needed outside help to explode? The events resulting in its condensation, if any, were not required to hold it in place.
The difference between positing an outer universe, or multiverse, and positing a God is that we know at least one universe exists. More generally, we know that universes can exist, and do in at least in one case. That’s the advantage: precedent. The bonus is the potential to explain how the things actually work.
This was a very persuasively put point – my congratulations!
Took me a while to get past the ‘uh…’ stage (so I’m glad it wasn’t a live public debate haha!), but now I think there’s not as much to this as I first thought.
This argument centres on possibilities: proving that there is a possibility for other universes. The thing is, that was never the question. My starting assumption is that something is possible until proven otherwise; any other starting assumption is at best prejudiced, at worst closed-minded.
And I submit that gods are also possible. I’m happy to be shown evidence that they are not, but until then any attempt to deny the possibility is based on unfounded assumption.
The other thing with possibilities is that it’s a yes/no box to check. Both multiple universes and gods are possible. ‘Precedent’ doesn’t make one ‘more possible’ – there’s no such thing!
If someone was to challenge the possibility of other universes, your argument might (perhaps) refute it, but if it does so it goes this far and no further.
You might say that the possibility of multiple universes can be proved (arguably), while the possibility of gods can’t be disproved*. So then, both are possible: they are then on equal standing.
(*I would say it can be proved, but that is another debate)
At any rate the one thing that has not been offered is a shred of evidence for these multiple/previous/outside universes – it remains (according to you) a choice between two un-supported possibilities.
I suppose that I should back up my claims that you only arguably prove the possibility of other universes.
If your argument is thus stated:
A. One universe exists.
ergo,
B. More than one universe is possible.
Then it clearly doesn’t follow deductively. I wouldn’t think it’s very strong inductively either.
We clearly need more premises…
Your argument could be thus stated:
1. If one universe exists, the entity ‘universe’ is possible.
2. If one universe exists, ‘more than one universe’ is possible.
3. One universe exists.
ergo,
4. ‘Universe’ is possible, and
5. ‘More than one universe’ is possible.
The argument is valid, but may be unsound. No-one doubts the soundness of 1, 3 – and therefore also 4.
But have a look at 3. Is this sound? How would you know? Is it anything more than a statement of your starting assumption which you’re trying to prove?
Oh, hello, I completely missed that you’d replied here.
Your formal logic’s a bit strange. 1 and 4 are completely superfluous, though I see you want to use the general possibility of “universe”. You have a valid syllogism in 2, 3 and 5 only. As you say, it’s probably not sound because 2 is the crux of the issue, but at least it sounds good.
Here’s my reasoning. It doesn’t try to establish as much.
Premise 1. If one universe exists, the entity ‘universe’ is possible.
Premise 2. One universe exists.
Ergo
Lemma A. ‘Universe’ is possible.
Premise 3. A universe’s creation and therefore existence is not dependent on itself.
Ergo
Lemma B. If the one known universe did not exist, but the independent conditions were the same, the entity ‘universe’ would still be possible.
Lemma C. If the one known universe did not exist, but the independent conditions were the same, a universe other than the known universe could exist.
Conclusion: The only reason a different universe might not be able to exist is the current existence of the one known universe.
Now that’s something physicists and cosmologists can look into. How would our universe interfere with the existence of others, and vice versa? Are we the only possible universe? What makes us so special?
I wouldn’t argue against the sheer possibility of gods. I’m not a “strong atheist” who positively believes in their absence, let alone a “gnostic atheist” who thinks he knows.
The specific difference is that it’s possible that even a single god is incapable of existing, but this is pre-empted for universes by the plain existence of ours. We can check one box for a universe which we can’t for a god. The existence of at least one other universe is not and can never be precluded by the impossibility of a single universe.
Precedent affects probability far more than it does possibility. If the first thing you take out of a big dark box is a kitten, the second thing could be anything from a dead rat to a live grenade, but you usually expect another kitten.
The human tendency to generalise like this is grounded in the fact that events or objects, though always subtly different, are very seldom completely unique. Once one stops thinking of a universe as necessarily being everything there is, there’s no obvious reason why it should be unique either, other than the assumption of a designer or special purpose. Scientists are simply looking for any other kittens or for their mother, who would naturally be the same species as them.
Aw darn it. Substitute “at least one universe” for “one universe” in premises 1 and 2.
Had another think about this, and my Premise 3 isn’t brilliant because it assumes universes must be created. Substitute:
Premise 3. The possibility of the entity “universe” is not contingent on the actual existence of a universe.
That is, we know “universe” is possible because we’re in one, but it’s not only possible because there is one.
I do wish I could edit my posts.