Critical to Naturalism is the idea that nature is the ultimate reality. From this, it follows that nature is sufficient to account for everything. In quasi-scientific interpretations of naturalism, this principle is articulated as unlimited or hyper-uniformitarianism. Hyper-uniformitarianism asserts that there is an unlimited scope and unlimited time span for natural law. An unlimited scope for natural law implies that natural law is an inherent property of nature as the ultimate reality. Falsification of unlimited uniformitarianism falsifies all forms of naturalism where nature behaves according to scientific laws.
The following argument does not falsify mystical or “magical ” interpretations of naturalism, particularly interpretations given to it by pre-modern thought-forms. These interpretations have the opposite problem: explaining the limited uniformity of cause and effects that is readily observed in the natural world. If the natural world that we live in is inherently mystical or magickal, then uniformity and regularity would not be expected in the natural world. (For more information on how mysticism is not compatible with science, it ishere in Chapter 13). Additionally, arguments in the next two chapters after this falsify all forms of Naturalism, whether they be mystical or quasi-scientific.
Three proofs will show that Hyper-uniformitarianism is false. It can be conclusively demonstrated that natural law is neither eternal nor the ultimate foundation, ground, or “final cause” using the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Pasteur’s Law, and Big Bang Cosmology.
The Second Law of Thermodynamicsis the principle asserting that the amount of energy available in a closed system decreases over time, resulting in increased entropy or disorder. Naturalism acts in opposition to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, implying that current natural processes did not always apply or apply universally. Naturalists respond to this charge by saying that we live in an open system that allows for energy to come in from outside to prevent the dissipation of energy that causes entropy.
If what Naturalists mean by open system is the idea that the universe is an open system, then they would be affirming something compatible with the Creation Hypothesis, that is, the material universe is an open system with attributes and properties (natural law) set by causes outside the system (transcendent, supernatural).
If Naturalists mean by this that the domain in which evolution is occurs is a local system within a closed universe. This would imply that the domain in which evolution operates behaves according to different laws than the universe as a whole. If the scope of Naturalism is global, then the entire material universe is an open systemwhose natural laws are the product of causes outside the system (supernatural, transcendent causes). If the scope of Naturalism is local, then natural laws defined by evolution are limited by the scope of evolution,themselves being defined by causes outside the system.
Unlimited uniformity of natural causes and natural law is incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy decrease that accompanies the development of life can only occur in open systems that operate under natural laws that do not operate outside of the scope of the open system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that entropy decrease (increase in organizational information or order) of any system be accounted for in terms of transcendent causes that lie outside of that system. The Creation Hypothesis predicts an open system of natural causes and effects whose laws were set in place by God’s creative act. The processes that produce the natural laws operate differently from the processes governed by those natural laws.Unlimited Uniformitarianism is falsified.
Pasteur’s law asserts that under natural law, abiogenesis (or the creation of life from non-life) is impossible. No one has even seen or committed a violation of this law. Pasteur’s law presents a difficulty for the unlimited uniformity of causes and effects or eternally existing natural law. Unless the biosphere is eternal, then logic dictates that at some point in the past, a non-biological cause(s) brought forth a biological effect. It can be expressed through this conditional argument.
1. IF natural law uniformly governs all of reality, THEN biological effects cannot arise from non-biological causes.
2. Biological effects DID arise from a non-biological cause (as conclusion of the following conditional sub-argument)
3. If Pasteur’s law is extended indefinitely into the past, then the biosphere is eternal
4. The biosphere is not eternal
———————————————-
Pasteur’s law does not extend indefinitely into the past
————————————————–
Natural law DOES NOT uniformly govern all of reality. (Modus Tollens).Unlimited Uniformitarianism is falsified.
The Big Bang provides smoking gun proof that naturalism, with its principle of unlimited uniformitarianism, is falsified. Two features of the Big Bang Model falsify unlimited uniformitarianism and naturalism: The existence of a beginning and the existence of the Big Bang Singularity.
The existence of a beginning implies that nature is not eternal. If the natural realm is not eternal, then the natural realm began to exist. This philosophically implies a transcendent cause, as it is impossible for anything to come from nothing
The existence of the Big Bang Singularity means that natural laws did not operate at the beginning of the universe. According to the Big Bang Model, the laws of physics did not operate during the first 10-43 seconds after the beginning of the current timeline1:1. This means that everything that is transcendent to the beginning and everything that operated within the timeline during the first 10-43 seconds has a supernatural nature that is not reducible or explainable in terms of natural law. The bottom line is that the natural world was produced by causes that ontologically1:2 transcendent – have a different type of being from created material objects.
Some have resorted to speculative Multiverse Hypotheses in the hope of escaping the necessity of a beginning or the necessity of a transcendent cause. This is plagued by the following dilemma: If the Multiverse is within the uniformity of natural causes and effects, then it would also have a beginning. If it is outside of that uniformity, then it is a transcendent cause to the universe. Bord, Guth, and Vilenkin have produced a theorem that asserts that in any inflationary context, inflation cannot be past-eternal. William Lane Craig has used this argument heavily in debates with atheists. During the course of these debates, there was a question of whether Craig misused the Theorem. Alexander Vilenkin, one of the architects of the theorem, sent out several communications to Lawrence Krauss, Victor Stenger, and William Lane Craig to clarify the implications of the theorem. In these communications, Vilenkin argued that inflation cannot be past-eternal. Vilenkin suggested that there are three possible alternative scenarios to an absolute singularity as a beginning1:3.
1. Previous contraction before inflation began. According to Vilenkin, this would be very unstable with singularities, creating a condition that would make stable inflation impossible.
2. A previous small stable area that is static, followed by inflation – no mechanism to enforce that condition
3. Quantum cosmology – definitely transcendent as we live in a classical universe that is quantum around the edges.
One feature in some versions of quantum cosmology is that our universe is a bubble that was formed when part of the multiverse decayed to a lower energy level. This poses a trilemma that points to the necessity of an absolute beginning and a transcendent cause. If the multiverse is absolutely infinite ( infinite energy density), then the multiverse is fundamentally different or transcendent from our universe. If the multiverse is infinite but with energy finitely distributed (finite energy density) and no Second Law of Thermodynamics, then the multiverse is fundamentally different from the universe. If the multiverse has energy that is finitely distributed (finite energy density) and that can decay into lower energy states, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Decay that results in lower energy levels means a physical reality that can only last a finite time, requiring a beginning 1:4
None of these escapes the necessity of an ontologically transcendent cause. Appealing to quantum mechanics or a multiverse does not avoid the implications of the Big Bang, but only moves the question back a few more steps. No matter what theory one holds, the endpoint requires an ontologically transcendent cause or an absolute beginning that requires an ontological cause. Furthermore, in quantum mechanics, physical reality emerges when an unentangled observer interacts with a quantum system and conducts a measurement. If the entire universe was a quantum system at the Big Bang, then the only possibilities that exist for un-entangled observers are supernatural observers 1:5 Quantum cosmology is more compatible with a Creation Framework than a Naturalistic or Evolutionary Framework. More on quantum cosmology in chapter 10.
This transcendent First Cause is not merely first in line, but of a qualitatively different nature than the effects produced. The temporal causes operated under one law of causation, but the First Cause is not subject to those rules. Natural laws that govern casualty in the natural universe have a limit. These laws require a First Cause to act as an Unmoved Mover to bring forth the space-time universe with natural laws as its attributes. Such a transcendent cause meets the minimal definition of supernatural – beyond nature. This is consistent with the creation framework and the Genesis account. The natural universe can only exist in its present form through a supernatural act.
Chapter 1 References
1. Shttp://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0101003v2.pdfpage 2
“Yet if quantum mechanics is a universal theory then it is inevitable that some form of “quantum cosmology” was important at the earliest of conceivable times, namely the Planck time, tPlanck = (Gh)1/2 /c5/2 = 5.4 × 10−44sec, (equivalent to 1019GeVas an energy, or 1.6 × 10−35 m as a length). At such scales, where the Compton wavelength of a particle is roughly equal to its gravitational (Schwarzschild) radius, irreducible quantum fluctuations render the classical concept of spacetime meaningless.”
2. Ontology is the study of the nature of being. Ontology, ontological, and ontologically appear throughout this book.<back to text>
3. Shttp://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem<back to text>
4. S http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/qg_qc.html<back to text>
5. An Introduction to Quantum Cosmology, David L. Wiltshire, Department of Physics and Mathematical Physics, University of Adelaide, S.A. 5005, Australia,http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0101003v2.pdfpage 2
If the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is true and quantum mechanics is the best description of what happened during the first instants of the Big Bang, then a transcendent, supernatural observer is necessary. consider the following quote from Dr Wiltshire.
“On the face of it the very words “quantum” and “cosmology” do appear to some physicists to be inherently incompatible. We usually think of cosmology in terms of the very large scale structure of the universe, and of quantum phenomena in terms of the very small. However, if the hot big bang is the correct description of the universe – which we can safely assume given the overwhelming evidence described in the earlier lectures – then the universe did start out incredibly small, and there must have been an epoch when quantum mechanics applied to the universe as a whole.“There are people who would take issue with this. In the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics one always has a classical world in which the quantum one is embedded. We have observers who make measurements – the observers themselves are well described by classical physics. If the whole universe is to be treated as a quantum system one does not have such a luxury, and some would argue that our conventional ideas about quantum physics cease to make sense. Yet if quantum mechanics is a universal theory then it is inevitable that some form of “quantum cosmology” was important at the earliest of conceivable times, namely the Planck time, tPlanck = (Gh)1/2 /c5/2 = 5.4 × 10−44sec, (equivalent to 1019GeVas an energy, or 1.6 × 10−35 m as a length). At such scales, where the Compton wavelength of a particle is roughly equal to its gravitational (Schwarzschild) radius, irreducible quantum fluctuations render the classical concept of spacetime meaningless. Whether or not our current efforts at constructing a theory of quantum cosmology are physically valid is therefore really a question of whether our current understanding of quantum physics is adequate for considering the description of processes at the very beginning of the universe, or whether quantum mechanics itself has to be revised at some level. Such a question can really only be answered by extensive work on the problem.