Anyone Want to End Piracy?

SOPA and PIPA

At this point, I imagine anyone with Internet access has heard of SOPA and PIPA. I found last Wednesday’s online protest quite enjoyable. I love political activism; I love seeing a people stand up to Washington and the large companies who try to purchase power over us*; and I hope this bill goes down because it will do little concerning piracy but could change the Internet as we know it.

Wednesday was a big win. I hope neither of these bills (and anything like them) ever pass.

But I’m also concerned about piracy, the issue some had hoped the bills would address. I’m concerned by the realization that *many* good persons are pirating music, films, and software…but few seem care.

I have a story about piracy. A story from my life.

My Lack of Music Problem

I was never one to listen to music regularly, so over the course of my high school years I acquired only a couple music CDs. But when I went to school (Virginia) in the Fall of 2004, I realized I do enjoy listening to music sometimes; it’s just that when I was home I’d relied upon overhearing music others were playing. So I set about to fix my lack of music problem.

It started small, I ripped a couple of my sister’s CDs to my computer, and I used iTunes to manage my music. It wasn’t long before I wanted to listen to something else, so I found it online for free (maybe a Russian site, etcetera).

Next thing you know, I wasn’t just using iTunes, I was also using MyTunes (pirating music from other computers that shared music via iTunes). Within months I’d amassed tens of gigabytes of music. It was wonderful—I had everything from Elvis to Shania Twain to Papa Roach to Snoop Dogg to Nickel Creek.

Reality Check

After this behavior began (probably more than a year later) I had a conversation with a friend. He confronted me: piracy is wrong, he clearly conveyed; it’s theft.

The wheels began turning in my head. Our conversation didn’t last too long…but I continued to have one with myself for a long while; I wanted to justify my behavior, explain how it wasn’t that bad.

(An Aside Concerning Definitions)

I realize that not everyone agrees upon what piracy means, and I don’t plan to settle the discussion now (I’m not entirely sure myself).

Yes, gray areas exist. For the purposes of this post, let’s ignore those gray areas and focus on the clear areas (such as the piracy I was guilty of early in my college years).

And let’s face it, though gray area piracy does occur often, straight up piracy is super common, and it’s done by normal and generally upstanding citizens of our nation.

Is Internet Piracy Really Theft?

Obviously theft is wrong. If someone questions this, we have other issues with which to deal! (Exodus 20:15, “You shall not steal.”)

Certainly back in the day that mostly applied to physical property (e.g. baskets, pigs, hammers, and pens)

But what about intellectual property (IP—the IP in PIPA)? IP is less tangible (e.g. brand names, music, designs, and prose).

Consider this passage:

1 Corinthians 9:9-11, For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?

In a relatively direct way Paul is saying that intangible investments (i.e. teaching, prayer, etc.) that he and others have made are worthy of material compensation. Paul used a passage from the law of Moses, and shows that it was not written so much for the sake of oxen, but as a specific instance of a big idea: it is right and good for us to enjoy the fruit of our labor.

And Paul’s specific application shows that whether that labor results in something super tangible like houses and crops or something less tangible such as excellent public addresses and written letters, it is right and good for the laborer to enjoy the fruit of his labor.

Ecclesiastes 3:13, Every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor—it is the gift of God.

Thus, when people write/perform/record music, when they design logos, when they create video games, when they write screenplays, etc…it is good and right for them to enjoy the fruit of their labor. And if they write a super popular screenplay, then it is good and right for them to enjoy *lots* of fruit.

(And, yes—for those quick to judge—it is also good and right for them to be generous with that fruit.)

Personal Attestation: As someone who’s possessed much more intellectual property than traditional property, I can bear witness to the fact that that IP often is the result of much labor! (That said, I’m a big open source fan and don’t mind sharing the fruit of *most* of my labor.)

I’ve recorded music, played shows, written at length, built software, etc. IP is most definitely the result of labor, and it should be enjoyed by the laborer. And when you use or make a copy of that property without permission, you’re depriving a laborer of the fruit of his labors; you’re muzzling the ox. This is sin.

(Again, fair use is massively important…and there are many gray areas. I briefly addressed this in the aside earlier in the post.)

My Excuses

After determining it was wrong, I still wanted to justify my piracy—I didn’t want to lose all the music I’d acquired!

These are two excuses I actually told myself:

  1. Everyone Does It

So? Since when does God call us to the holiness standard set by “everyone”?

I had no answer.

  1. I Don’t Feel Convicted When I Pirate Music

This seemed to satisfy. After all, if celebrating no day as holy doesn’t bother your conscience, then don’t celebrate, right (Rom. 14)? And then I realized, “How terrifying—that my actions are clearly condemned by the Word of God and yet not by my own conscience!”

It was as if my conscience had been “seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim 4:2); it was unresponsive to this sin.

The End of My Story

I repented. I deleted the music. I do my best to refrain from piracy (again, there definitely are gray areas).

And my conscience is much more sensitive in this area now. (I’m even convicted as I write this concerning a piece of software; I need to look into the licensing details!)

Conclusion

What’s the solution? Well, certainly not SOPA and PIPA! They wouldn’t have stopped the college-freshman-me anyway…but a lot of passion was exhibited the other day—a people taking a stand for liberty.

And I would love to see as much passion exhibited by a people in support of the respect of intellectual property. And not a stand that necessarily results in laws, but results in individuals calling each other out and taking a stand for God honoring activity.

Piracy might get someone the coolest things fastest, but I don’t think piracy is cool in God’s book.

The end.

* (I didn’t want to distract from my point up top…but this is too good not to mention!) We’ve all long known that corporations regularly bribe politicians through campaign contributions (and are often successful). One amazingly direct quotation surfaced through this whole SOPA/PIPA ordeal, a statement from a studio chief who said, “God knows how much money we’ve given to Obama and the Democrats and yet they’re not supporting our interests.”

§78 · January 23, 2012 · 1472 Words · Essays, Miscellaneous, Politics · (No comments) · Tags: , , ,

Hashtags

This is a random post. On a topic that only interests me because I’m slightly obsessive and a geek.

Hashtags: Are They a Twitter Invention?

No.

First, hashtags were first used in a Tweet by a user, who now happens to be a Google employee, not Twitter.

Second, this usage was not entirely original; actually, it was bringing a preexisting standard to a new medium with a slightly modified use.

Third, over time, the way many use hashtags on Twitter (and now all over including Facebook) has evolved as people like you and me use them. (Just like language evolves.)

The Creator

Chris Messina is the guy who first used a hashtag in a tweet. He asked, “how do you feel about using # (pound) for groups. As in #barcamp [msg]?” (The Tweet that began an era.)

This was August 23, 2007.

Although a great idea, it didn’t take off until the disastrous fires in San Diego lit up the Internet (including Twitter). Messina was an active evangelist for the hashtag and took advantage of the opportunity. Here’s his blog post dated October 22, 2007; in this entry Messina makes a solid case for the potential of the hashtag convention.

The True Origins: IRC

Messina’s Tweet suggesting hashtags was made on August 23, 2007. Two days later here wrote a long blog entry giving further explanation for the convention he’d proposed.

It occurred to me that IRC presents a proven model for these needs with its foundation on channels, and so that’s what I’m generally going to call them.

In this post he explains how the hashtag idea isn’t entirely original but is very directly based upon an preexisting standard from Internet Relay Chat—essentially a protocol for certain kinds of chatting online (mostly for geeks).

I’ll admit, I didn’t use IRC until just a few years ago, but the protocol has been around nearly as long as I have—1988. One useful feature of IRC is separate conversations in different channels (conversation topics/groupings). To enter a specific conversation in IRC, one would type the following:

/join #conversationtopicgoeshere

Twitter users, look somewhat familiar?

Messina’s idea was to be able to follow conversations on Twitter by simply having users preppend Tweets with the conversation topic…or the grouping for a conversation…or the “channel” to which the Tweet belonged.

While I fully credit him with the creation of hashtags within the world of Twitter, we must not ignore the idea (hashtagging) did not fully originate with him.

Evolution

Messina’s idea was to simply associate Tweets with a conversation. For example:

#christmas2011 I had sooo much fun shopping today!

But the usage has evolved to be more than simply a conversation title but fun/useful/additional information communicated in a very blunt way (and I’ve fully embraced this usage). Example:

Ten more pages and I head home! #cantwaittobehome #ilovefoodsomuch

In this instance #cantwaittobehome and #ilovefoodsomuch are not conversations to which this statement belongs. They’re essentially addendums, almost parenthetical statements but even less connected to the sentence.

Conclusion

The Twitter is an interesting piece of software with lots of potential; my intention is not to take away from the company. However, a common notion is that hashtags are a “Twitter thing”.

But, Twitter didn’t create hashtags, one of their users “created them”. And, he didn’t really create them so much as borrow them from a preexisting protocol. Subsequently the usage evolved and spread to other platforms as well.

btw, I’d love to hear other ways hashtags are used. I demonstrated two common usages that I’ve seen, but I’m sure there are others!

§72 · November 23, 2011 · 667 Words · Miscellaneous · 2 comments · Tags: , ,

Rick Perry (and the Gardasil Vaccination)

Promise: I’ll Give Other Candidates a Chance

Yes, I’ve already voiced my support for a congressman from Texas, but I’m interested in a conservative victory in 2012. I won’t compromise much for this victory, but I’m certainly willing to change who I support. (I guess you could say I’m less loyal to Ron Paul than I am to many of the principles he vehemently advocates.)

Thus, as Rick Perry declares his candidacy yesterday, I’m now taking a serious look at him. Maybe he’s the best candidate for a conservative victory.

Over the past few weeks I’ve heard some things (mostly great things). And I’ve seen some snippets of speeches and prayers. He’s seems polished, confident, respectful, sincere, and intelligent. But I really don’t know anything about him, so today I spent time looking into Governor Perry.

I checked out the Texas budget; while he was governor both spending and debt increased. That is certainly disappointing, but not necessarily the end, so I continued reading about him.

Then I stumbled across something quite shocking, and that is why I’m writing now.

The Executive Order

In February of 2007, Rick Perry issued an executive order mandating all females receive the vaccination Gardasil before entering the sixth grade. Gardasil prevents several types of a very common STD.

(In addition to the parental rights issue, the vaccine had only been approved less than a year previous by the FDA, and within a couple of years (2009) studies came out raising legitimate questions concerning the safety of the vaccination. Thus this is also an issue of safety and foolishness. I’m not saying it should be illegal, but mandatory!?)

Here’s an article that gives a quick summary of the entire situation as it went down.

I’m am short on time, but I’ll try my best to be brief. In short, this order is a violation of parental rights (parents, not governors, should decide what vaccinations their children receive), it assumes scandalous behavior concerning YOUNG girls in Texas (11-12 years), and it is a very foolish to mandate such a vaccine with so little history to have determined safety.

To make matters worse, although this order was issued in 2007 and was subsequently overwhelmingly overturned by the Texas legislature only months later, Perry has not seemed repent in the least.

That sums it up, I’ll continue with some thoughts on the various issues I’ve mentioned here (plus another one, possible corruption).

NOTE (to maintain intellectual honesty): The word mandate is very faithful to this issue since the text of the executive order clearly says, “The Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner shall adopt rules that mandate the age appropriate vaccination of all female children for HPV prior to admission to the sixth grade (The Executive Order, emphasis added).” However, I must inform you that according to an AP article I read, in Texas parents are able to opt out of mandatory inoculations by filing a written affidavit explaining an objection for religious or philosophical concerns. That said, props to Texas for this opt out loophole…but, in my opinion, that changes little concerning Perry’s actions.

Violation of Parental Rights

Volumes could be written on the subject, but suffice to say that families are crucial building blocks for society. This is certainly Biblical and can also be supported by various social tests (success of children from healthy homes versus broken homes).

Unless there is an issue of serious abuse or neglect, there ought not even be a discussion about the state usurping the rights of parents.

And certainly choosing not to inject your eleven year old daughter with a vaccination approved less than one year ago that will protect her from some STDs which she would most likely only come in contact with if she has sexual partners before marriage…certainly this is not abuse.

Sixth Grade?

At minimum his assumption of sexual promiscuity upon the population at large is fairly disrespectful. If someone wants to encourage their daughter to sleep around, well the vaccine is legal and available, go for it. But why must it be mandatory for those who respect themselves and those around them?

Additionally, vaccinating young girls against some STDs could readily lead to a couple of problems:

  1. It might give them a false sense of security that they are safe from STDs in general.
  2. The very process (three separate shots) and accompanying education could be read by young girls as tacit approval of sexual promiscuity.

Safe?

Personally, I recommend you think twice before injecting anything into yourself or your children.

The idea of vaccinations is awesome, and vaccinations have certainly contributed to our relatively long and healthy lives. However, they can be dangerous.

This particular vaccination, Gardasil, has been judged fairly safe and effective; thus the FDA approved it in June of 2006. Rick Perry issued the executive order in February of 2007.

Personally, I’d want to wait a bit until Gardasil had more of a proven track record to see if it was safe to inject into my daughters. (Well, I wouldn’t get them Gardasil, period. But if I was actually interested in the vaccination, I’d wait to verify its safety.)

Perry didn’t wait at all. He didn’t seem to care even though he was going to require many thousands of young girls to be injected. He was in such a rush he issued an executive order (which then had to be overturned by the legislature).

And only a couple of years later there are studies coming to light that raise questions. This isn’t to say that Gardasil is terrible and evil, but there are legitimate concerns that need to be considered. And the responsibility to make a wise decision rests upon parents, not governors.

Corporate Ties

Things start to look messy.

While governor, Rick Perry had a chief of staff (2002-2004) named Mike Toomey (who was also involved in the Tom Delay scandal). Toomey then became a lobbyist for Merck & Co. (the producer of Gardasil).

Perry’s next chief of staff was Deirdre Delisi (2004-2007). And his mother-in-law, Republican Rep. Dianne White Delisi, was a state director for Women in Government. This group has been very interested in HPV and cervical cancer and received funding from Merck. (The exact funding hasn’t been disclosed by either party.)

The Merck PAC contributed $6,000 to Perry.

A Huffington Post article states that Toomey co-owns a private island in New Hampshire with Perry’s campaign manager, Dave Carney.

Now, certainly there is no proof. However, this executive order issued by Perry flies in the face of parental rights. Its disrespect and assumption (and possible tacit approval) of young girls’ sexual promiscuity flies in the face of most in the Christian Right (Perry’s base). And it is downright foolish to mandate so quickly after approval by the FDA.

Why would he issue an executive order like this? Not only doing something very much not conservative. Not only doing something that wouldn’t sit well with his base. But bypassing the legislature altogether (although they do have some say and later overturned it by an overwhelming majority).

After seeing these connections via friendships and money, a very reasonable explanation is that this wasn’t something he did because he felt it was right…but very possibly for less honorable reasons.

A firm conclusion would be foolish, but it looks bad enough that it demonstrates at least some very foolish practices if not actually intentionally dark. If he is totally innocent and simply felt it would actually be healthy for these girls, then why not make it a major issue and push the legislature to do something about it? Why step in so quickly and issue this executive order?

Another thing, why associate so closely with the man involved in the Delay scandal?

Again, a firm conclusion would be foolish, but this certainly is shady.

No Repentance

The legislature overturned his executive order. From the Real Clear Politics article:

Roughly 60 state lawmakers called on Perry to rescind the order. He refused. Just six weeks after Perry put pen to paper, the Texas House rebuked him on March 14, 2007, passing HB 1098, overturning his executive order by a vote of 119-21. The Senate followed suit the following month by a vote of 30-1.

After this, Governor Perry gave a speech.

This speech is disappointing. Instead of recognizing legitimate concerns with his hasty mandate via executive order, he maintained its necessity and acted as if the legislature was depriving Texans of good health, stripping them of protection. However, the vaccine is still legal and available…just not mandatory. So they haven’t been deprived of anything except an executive order mandating they’re daughters be inoculated.

Tentative Conclusion

Rick Perry, I’m not impressed. In fact, I’m somewhat shocked.

As usual, I maintain the right to switch my conclusion if I become aware of additional evidence or reasoning that changes that which I’ve found.

However, I don’t see that happening. This isn’t based upon a single blog entry somewhere on the web. The sources I’ve used have been the Governor himself, The AP, The Huffington Post, Real Clear Politics, and some other (yes) more obscure ones.

But if you do know additional information, I’d love to hear it!

*btw, Ron Paul is strongly opposed to mandatory vaccinations.

§67 · August 15, 2011 · 1704 Words · Politics · 2 comments · Tags: , , ,

Part Three (B): The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Note: This is part of a mini-series; I recommend reading the posts in order.

The First Premise

Now that the reasonability of the (2) second premise has been established in the previous post, let us examine the (1) first premise.

  1. Everything that began to exist had a cause

A Brief Illustration: A Broken Window

If you arrive at home and notice the kitchen window is broken, there are many possible explanations. Maybe a tornado kicked up debris or maybe a thief broke in or maybe a child threw a ball or maybe the window spontaneously broke entirely uncaused or maybe the glass had been changing over time (unintelligibly to you) and suddenly reach some sort of breaking point or maybe…

There are lots of explanations, and technically any and all of these explanations are possible, but which one is most reasonable to believe? Well, if you knew some kids were playing with a ball out in the yard that morning, I suggest a conversation with them; the ball through the window theory is looking very promising. If things are missing and the house is trashed, then the thief hypothesis is a reasonable option. And so forth.

We reason like this everyday, all throughout the day.

One of these possibilities is *never* accepted: the window spontaneously broke entirely uncaused. And there is a reason this is never accepted—it isn’t a result of prejudice. For all known human history, this reason has never been found to be reasonable. Thus at this point not only is it not accepted as the explanation for a broken window, but for good reason it isn’t even considered as an option.

Intuition, Experience, and Observation

In short, the idea that all things that begin to exist have a cause just makes sense intuitively. And not only does it make sense, but the totality of our experience and methodical observation confirms our natural intuition.

Further, if this (1) premise one was false, then why wouldn’t anything or everything pop in and out of existence entirely without cause? Why is our Universe so stable? But, if the Universe sprang into existence from nothing and for no reason, we could expect to find massive instability. Galaxies would pop in and out of existence, horses would appear in our parlors, etc.

Now, you might wonder, maybe this instability exists outside the Universe and only within the Universe the (1) first premise stands. However, how could “from nothing and for nothing” discriminate concerning these uncaused beginnings!? The falsity of (1) premise one leads to the overturning of the Law of Cause and Effect. And if such is the case, then in our experience (and certainly in our methodical observation) we would find violations of the Law left and right.

However, we find stability. We find the Law of Cause and Effect. We find no violations. We find the (1) first premise is quite sound.

Quantum Events

For those who have some familiarity with Quantum Physics, let briefly address quantum fluctuations.

First, my knowledge is limited, if you want to pursue this extensively, I recommend going other places! But I know a little, and now I will proceed.

At the quantum level, the spontaneous creation of particles and antiparticles has been observed with measurable effects. Does this disprove (1) premise one? Might this be the contrary behavior we’d expect to find through methodical observation if the premise wasn’t sound?

I submit that the answer is “No.”

Why? Because it really isn’t a “from nothing for entirely no reason” situation. These fluctuations occur in vacuums, but vacuums in our Universe are not nothing; they are very much a sea of energy constrained by the laws of physics.

A testament to this is the very fact that these particles and antiparticles exist only for very short periods of time, and the assumption by the physicists I’ve read is that this is on account of the law of conservation of energy.

Thus this differs from what the (1) first premise really gets at in that these quantum fluctuations come from a sea of energy and apparently are obeying prexisting laws beyond themselves. Thus, they don’t begin to exist entirely uncaused, but are at least indirectly caused by their vacuum environment and at least allowed by the laws of Physics.

When we observe these fluctuations the logical question is “why?” We don’t have a complete answer yet, but don’t stop too soon. We have a partial answer, and I’m holding out for a more complete one. It isn’t terribly reasonable to assume that something came about for no reason just because we don’t have a decent explanation for it!

What About Outside Our Universe

Since there is no denying the reasonability of this premise within our universe, the question becomes “How do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the premise holds true outside our universe?” The short answer is that we don’t, and we can’t.

However, it is clear that just because we cannot be 100% certain of something, does not mean that we are stuck and have no rational grounds for moving along. Remember the previous part concerning the nature of proof and reasonability?

For instance, let’s try answering another question:

How do we know that this universe didn’t spring into existence five minutes ago; all of us having been created with a full set of memories that are happy, sad, pleasant, and scary and all together false and imaginary?

The answer is: we don’t know and can’t know. We can’t prove that it did and we can’t prove that it did not!

However, we can come to the reasonable conclusion&emdash;based upon intuition, scientific observation, and strict reasoning—that the universe did not pop into existence five minutes ago. It is possible that such is the case, but we reject the notion because it is unreasonable.

Similarly, couldn’t there be exceptions to (1) premise one? Sure. Is it reasonable to think there is such an exception? No.

Concluding the Kalam Cosmological Argument

For review, the complete (and brief) syllogism:

  1. Everything that began to exist had a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

The logic is valid.

The (2) second premise is highly reasonable.

The (1) first premise is highly reasonable.

Thus, necessarily, the conclusion is highly reasonable.

Next

In the future we’ll consider reasonable characteristics of the cause and their implications.

§52 · June 23, 2011 · 1096 Words · Apologetics (The Mini-Series) · 1 comment · Tags: , , ,

Part Three (A): The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Note: This is part of a mini-series; I recommend reading the posts in order.

Introduction

Well, it’s been longer than I anticipated since the last post, I guess I got distracted, and then lost vision. But now I’m back.

I haven’t been able to reduce Part Three below two thousand words, so I’ve decided to break it up further into two posts, Three (A) and Three (B). In this post I will introduce the argument, and then consider it’s second premise.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Much credit goes to William Lane Craig, a prominent scholar who’s excellent presentation of this argument has had a great impact on me.

(Much credit is also due to my friend, Carson Smith, who has engaged with me in dialogue for many hours concerning this and related subjects. He also authored sections of this, but I cannot remember which ones.)

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, one of many versions of the Cosmological Argument, is an argument for the existence of a cause of our universe, and takes the form of a very simple syllogism.

  1. Everything that began to exist had a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

Using this basic syllogism, let us proceed.

Validity of the Syllogism

Firstly, does this syllogism represent valid logic? That is, if the (1) first and (2) second premises are true, does (3) the conclusion necessarily follow? The answer is yes, for this syllogism is of a simple form:

1. All A are B
2. x is an A
3. Therefore, x is B

This syllogism represents simple and valid logic. Thus, if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily is true also. In order to determine the soundness or reasonability of the conclusion, we now must examine the premises. The conclusion is as true/sound/reasonable as the weakest premise.

First we’ll analyze the (2) second premise.

Evidence for the Truthfulness of the Second Premise:

Metaphysics

The second premise:

  1. The universe began to exist

If the universe did not begin to exist, then it is eternal and has an infinite past. However, it can be demonstrated that the actualization of an infinite quantity quickly leads to absurd results. Infinities cannot exist in reality. Stick with me for a moment, this will make sense. Another simple syllogism:

  1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality
  2. A beginningless series of events is an infinite number of things
  3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events cannot exist in reality

Simply put, infinities cannot be actualized.

Additionally,

  1. An eternal universe must exist over an infinite period of time
  2. An infinite period of time would imply a beginningless series of events
  3. A beginningless series of events cannot exist in reality
  4. Therefore an infinite period of time cannot exist in reality
  5. Therefore the universe cannot be eternal

This states that time without a beginning means that there exists an actually infinite set of time events. But since we know that infinities cannot be actualized, then time must have a beginning, and the universe must not be eternal.

This is an important point to understand, so let’s continue further. Some more illustrative arguments:

Billiard Balls

Suppose person A has an actually infinite number of billiard balls. Person A could give ten of the balls to person B, but he would still have an infinite number of balls himself. Infinity minus ten equals infinity.

Continuing with this for a moment, suppose person A gave person B every other ball in his collection, an infinite number of balls. So person A keeps an infinite number of balls, every other ball, while giving away and infinite number of balls. Infinity minus infinity equals infinity.

This math works on paper, but when applied to actuality, it becomes absurd. We all know that if you have a bucket of balls, no matter how big (even a bucket the size of our galaxy) if you give away ten billiard balls, then you will have ten less. You will not have the same amount.

Similarly, if you give away your total number of balls, then you will have none left. Infinite numbers are useful for lots of stuff, but they cannot be actualized…it’s absurd.

In this case with the billiard balls, we encounter a situation in which infinity minus ten (or even infinity minus infinity) does not change the actual number of balls remaining; there are still an infinite number of balls. This defies logic, and therefore, due to the law of non-contradiction, this example demonstrates that actualized infinities cannot exist in reality.

Walking Home

Enough with the billiard balls, let’s consider a situation more directly analogous to infinite time.

Suppose that you started walking home from a position an actually infinite number of steps (yards) away from your home. Now imagine that you take one step. If you subtract one step from infinity, you still have an infinite number of steps remaining, and so your one step closer to your home has simply positioned you another infinite number of steps away from your home. In essence, after one step you now have an “infinity minus one” number of steps to go, which is, of course, just another infinite number of steps. No matter how many steps you take, you will aways have an infinite number of steps to traverse, and so you will never make it home.

Not only can we not actualize infinities because of the absurdity and the law of non-contradiction, but we could never traverse an infinite number of steps, events, or pass through an infinite amount of time, even if such quantities of distance or time were real.

Back to Our universe

Now let us consider some things about the universe. If the universe were eternal—as in, has always existed, as in, did not begin to exist, as in, has existed from an infinite past—then between the infinite past and the present exists an infinite expanse of time. As has been demonstrated, an infinite expanse of distance, time, or anything, cannot be fully traversed, and so our universe could never traverse that infinite expanse of time to reach the present. Given an infinite past, our universe would always be in transit to the present, an infinite amount of time away.

However, we have reached the present! The universe has reached “now”!

The only way the universe could have reached “now”, is for it to have traversed a finite expanse of time on its way to “now”. If it traversed a finite expanse of time to reach now, which it must have done, then there must have been a beginning at which it began. The only way to have a finite expanse of time before “now”, is to have a beginning.

To Summarize The Metaphysical Arguments

Infinities can never be actualized, only approached. Thus time as we know it (think space time) had a beginning.

Thus, our universe is not eternal, but began to exist at some point in the past.

Contemporary Science

The non-eternal nature of our universe can be attested through an analysis of the impossibility and absurdity of eternal time. However, is a logical analysis of the absurd effects of infinite time just a theoretical idea about the non-eternality of the universe, or does the realm of science provide us with any additional information to confirm or deny the claim that the universe is not eternal?

The answer to this question is: Yes! Scientific observations do provide additional information about the eternality or non-eternality of the universe. In fact, scientific observation has done much to corroborate the theory that the universe is not eternal, has not always been, and therefore had a beginning…aka…”the universe began to exist”.

Redshift and Expansion

One of the many observations directing one to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning is fact of the current expansion of the universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that galaxies appeared to be moving away from each other, based on his observation of the redshift in the light received from distant supernovae. Hubble’s observations and subsequent conclusions demonstrated that the universe is expanding. This conclusion carries the implication that the universe had a definite beginning; for movement backward in time necessarily entails the progressive densification of our universe, and consequently, if one were to continue to move backward in time, eventually they would reach a state in which the universe was unexpanded and extremely dense. If one were to travel far enough into the past, they would reach the point in time when the expansion began, thus representing the beginning of the universe. The event causing this unexpanded and dense amount of material to expand, is commonly known as the Big Bang, and marks the beginning of our universe.

Accelerated Expansion

In 1998, a monumental discovery was made by cosmologists indicating that the universe is not only expanding, but expanding more rapidly now than it was in the past. Again, the discovery that our universe is expanding (at an accelerating pace no-less) is a strong evidence that in the distant past, the universe began to exist. However, the discovery of the universe’s accelerating expansion also demonstrates that the universe will not collapse back on itself, destroying the postulation that the universe has oscillated back and forth, eternally, by means of successive Big Bangs and “Big Crunches”. Digressing back to the original point, the accelerating expansion of the universe is yet another corroboration that the universe’s expansion and the universe itself began at some point in the distant past.

Modern Science

The beginning of the universe has also been described by leading cosmologists and theoretical physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. In their publications, “The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe” (Astrophysics Journal 152 (1968), pp. 25-36) (co-written with George Ellis), and “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology” (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548), Hawking and Penrose conclude that space and time, along with matter and energy, had a distinct beginning at some point in the past. Stated more simply, they concluded that before the Big Bang, time, space, energy, and matter did not exist. Instead, everything began to exist only once the Big Bang occurred.

Reasonability

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is simple. But it is valid and it’s conclusion is bold. The debate concerns the reasonability of the premises.

  1. The universe began to exist

This premise is highly reasonable. It is strongly supported by metaphysical arguments and modern physics and cosmology.

Next we’ll consider the (1) first premise. And then we’ll consider the reasonability of the conclusion and its implications.

§51 · June 14, 2011 · 1850 Words · Apologetics (The Mini-Series), Essays · Comments Off · Tags: , , , , ,

← Older entries